Proper notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental rights guaranteed in administrative proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners suffered an award in proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 as ARC No.1944/2017. According to the petitioners, they did not receive proper summons. It is their case that on account of improper service of summons or failure to serve summons, they were set ex parte in the the arbitration proceedings and Ext.P2 award dated 14-11-2017 was passed determining the liability of the petitioner by the 5^th respondent bank. The petitioners preferred separate applications as Exts.P5 and P6 before the 4^th respondent for setting aside the ex parte award. Those applications are seen dated 24-08-2025. By Ext.P7 communication, the petitioners have been informed that the application for setting aside the ex parte award cannot be considered and proceedings for sale of the property of the petitioners has been taken for recovery of the amounts due under the award. The petitioners are thus before this court seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 examine the same and quash and set aside the same, holding the same as illegal and offending the principles of natural justice.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents No.4 to hear the petitioners or their counsels on Exts.P5 and P6 by giving notice and pass orders on the same by acting as a quasi judicial authority.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 4^th respondent not to recover amounts based on Ext.P2 exparte award or to conduct sale till Ext.PS and P6 is heard on merits with notice to the petitioners and orders passed thereon.”

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Ext.P7 order cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted when an application is filed for setting aside the ex parte award, the 4^th respondent ought to have heard the petitioners before rejecting that application. It is submitted that it is clear from a reading of Ext.P7 that Exts.P5 and P6 applications were rejected without affording an opportunity hearing to the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the applications for setting aside the ex parte award were filed nearly 7 years after the date on which Ext.P2 award was passed. It is submitted that the reasons stated for setting aside the ex parte award is also not sustainable as it clear from a reading of Ext.P7 that the summons was issued in the arbitration proceedings and the summons was accepted by the 2^nd petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the 1^st petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent bank, I am of the view that the petitioners were entitled to be heard before their applications for setting aside the ex parte award were dismissed. It is clear from a reading of Ext.P7 that the applications (Exts.P5 and P6) were dismissed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, Ext.P7 will stand set aside. The 4^th respondent is directed to consider Exts.P5 and P6 in accordance with the law and take a decision on those applications after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 5^th respondent bank. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the ex parte award set aside and Ext.P7 is being set aside only on the ground that the same was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. All coercive steps to enforce the award shall