Judgment:
Kamlesh Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings under which the balance amount of loan and interest allegedly due and payable to the respondent-Corporation is being recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The main challenge is that these proceedings have been initiated on the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent-Corporation that a sum of Rs. 8,85,512 was due from the petitioner, which certificate was issued without giving him any opportunity. This certificate is issued under Section 3(1)(d)(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M.A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1981 Kar 193, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the certificate issued by the managing director for recovery of the loan amount deserves to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity to show cause was given or enquiry held for holding that an amount of Rs. 8,85,512 was actually due and payable by the petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has made an attempt to convince this court that in the absence of any provision in the Act for giving notice to show cause or for holding enquiry, the principles of natural justice have not been violated and there is no infirmity in the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent-Corporation, on the basis of which the proceedings for recovery as arrears of land revenue have been started.
3. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we uphold the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The point in issue is no longer res integra that if there is nothing in the statutory provisions, which debars the application of the principles of natural justice, the parties would be given reasonable opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed against them in application of principles of natural justice. In Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat, AIR 1975 SC 596, the learned judges of the Supreme Court have considered whether the provisions of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act were unconstitutional as these did not provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties or the orders passed in violation of natural justice should be declared null and void. Their reply to the proposition was (page 597) :
'There are two possible approaches to this question. One is to hold that the provisions of the statute are themselves unconstitutional because they do not provide a reasonable opportunity for the affected parties to be heard, the other is to hold that as there is nothing in the statutoryprovisions which debar the application of the principles of natural justice while the authorities exercise the statutory powers under the Act, and as the principles of natural justice would apply unless the statutory provisions point to the contrary the statutory provisions themselves are not unconstitutional though the notifications issued under them may be struck down if the authorities concerned do not observe the principles of natural justice while exercising their statutory powers. As there is a presumption of constitutionality of statutes unless the contrary is established it is the latter course that appears to us to be the proper approach.'
4. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned judges of the Karnataka High Court in M.A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1981 Kar 193, have also held that the certificate issued by the managing director to the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of loans due as arrears of land revenue was violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the loanee concerned by issuing a show-cause notice or by holding enquiry about the actual amount due and payable by him.
5. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings for recovery of loan allegedly due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation as arrears of land revenue are bad, as these are based on the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent-Corporation without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or without holding any enquiry about the actual amount due and payable by him to the respondent-Corporation.
6. In the result, the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent-Corporation is set aside and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of loan and interest as arrears of land revenue are quashed. The writ petition is allowed in these terms, However, the managing director of the respondent-Corporation is at liberty to issue a fresh certificate after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or by holding an enquiry whichever he thinks proper in respect of the actual balance amount of loan and interest due and payable by the petitioner, The managing director of the respondent-Corporation will pass a speaking order. No costs.