An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void.

Bhutt, J—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darwha-Pusad, by which the amount of the fine of Rs. 50 imposed by the petitioner on respondent no. 1 under rule 5 for breach of rule 1 of Clause XXV of the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayat Rules, 1948 (hereinafter called the Rules), was reduced to Rs. 5.

2. The petitioner is a Gram Panchayat at Vidul in taluq Pusad of Yeotmal district, which is constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent no. 1 is the Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society at Vidul within the Gram Panchayat area. Under section 41 (2) of the Act, the Gram Panchayat was entitled to require every person practising the calling of buyer, broker, commission agent, weigher or measurer within its area to take out a licence and to levy such fee therefor as may be prescribed. In pursuance of this authority read with rule 1 of Clause XXV of the Rules the petitioner Gram Panchayat in a meeting held on the 3rd May 1950 passed a resolution directing issue of notices to persons who had not obtained the requisite licence. Accordingly a notice dated the 12th May 1950 was served on the Manager of the respondent Society calling on him to obtain a licence on payment of the prescribed fee of Rs. 4. To this notice the Society sent a reply dated the 14th May 1950 challenging the right of the Gram Panchayat to (1) : A. I. R. 1952 S. C. 192.levy the licence-fee and intimated that recovery proceedings be stayed till the decision of the appeal that it intended to file in the matter.

3. Action on the notice dated the 12th May 1950 was not taken until on the 19th June 1950 a notice was again sent to the Society requiring it to pay the licence-fee within 3 days, and failing payment to show cause why a fine of Rs. 10 should not be levied in accordance with section 47 of the Act. To this notice a reply was sent by the Society on the 20th June 1950 intimating that it had filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Yeotmal, against the proposed levy of licence-fee, and that action be stayed until the decision of the appeal.

4. The Gram Panchayat, on receipt of the report of its peon Dhondu Narayan, dated the 6th November 1950, sent a notice on the 9th November 1950 to its members of a special meeting to be held on the 10th November 1950. In the report it was alleged that the Society purchased cotton from Jalba Mahadu and Ramkrishna Ganpat, of Vidul, Datta Bapuji Gurav and several others without taking out a licence. Amongst the members of the Gram Panchayat are Shri Shankar Gopal Desh-mukh and Shri Umakant Krishnappa Komti who are the office bearers of the Society. The notice dated the 9th November 1950 does not bear the signature of these two members. The case of the Gram Panchayat was that this notice was served on them, whereas the Society alleged that it was not sent to them at all and that no meeting was really held on the 10th November 1950. In the view we take of the case, it is not necessary to consider this point and we shall assume that the notice was duly served and the meeting was held as alleged by the Gram Panchayat.

5. The notice dated the 9th November 1950 contained the agenda of the meeting to be held on the 10th November 1950, The relevant subjects for consideration were stated in the following terms, viz.,

(1)* * *

(2) To consider (the report) made by the peon of the Village Panchayat that the Manager of the Co-operative Society of this place purchased cotton without a licence.

(3) To give notices to the persons not taking licences.

6. In the meeting held on the 10th November 1950 appearance was not put in by Shri Shankar Gopal Deshmukh and Shri Umakant Krishnappa Komti and the following resolution was passed in the presence of other members:

The village Panchayat gave a notice to the Society according to the Resolution no. 2 of the meeting dated the 3rd May 1950, but the Socie