Procedural fairness mandates that parties must be given a fair hearing before any orders affecting their rights are made.

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the appellant Bank by challenging the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.31867/2025.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

3. The case of the appellant was that the 2nd respondent had availed a loan from the appellant bank and had also repaid the same, but the 2^nd respondent claimed that the appellant had charged and recovered an excess amount, i.e., Rs.3,120/- more from the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, he approached the Kerala State Co-operative Ombudsman Office by filing a complaint. Wherein, the Ombudsman passed an order directing the appellant Bank to repay Rs.2,940/- out of the claimed amount of Rs.3,120/-, vide order dated 21.01.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant Bank filed a writ petition against the order mainly on the ground that the Ombudsman had passed the order without providing any opportunity to the appellant Bank to contest the matter. Therefore, the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the Ombudsman in the writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering the arguments, held that although notice was not served on the appellant/petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Ombudsman to pass an order after following due procedure and serving notice on the appellant/petitioner. However, the Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman was not set aside by the learned Single Judge.

Hence, the appellant Bank is now before this Court.

5. Having considered the arguments, this Court by an interim order dated 18.12.2025 called a report from the Ombudsman regarding the service of notice. Accordingly, the same was received by this Court, upon verification of the envelope, it is confirmed that the notice was sent to the appellant by the 2^nd respondent which shows that the notice was sent to the appellant bank, showing only the No.329, Thrissur with Pincode 680 008. The endorsement of the postal authority reveals that the “addressee not known”. Therefore, the notice has been returned un-served. Based upon the un-served notice, the Ombudsman has held that the notice has been duly served and passed the ex-parte order, which is under challenge.

6. Of course, the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered it as only a matter about Rs.2,940/- and do not want to interfere with the order of the Ombudsman and stated that it should not be a precedent for any other case, hence disposed of the writ petition.

7. Upon considering the judgment in the writ petition, whether the amount involved is two thousand rupees or lakhs of rupees, the quantum of the amount is immaterial. However, it is necessary that the principles and procedures be followed by the authorities. In the present case, the notice was sent to the wrong address, and it was returned unserved with the endorsement "addressee not known." Such being the case, the Ombudsman ought to have issued a fresh notice to the appellant Bank. Therefore, without issuing a further notice, treating the earlier notice as deemed service is not correct.

8. The principle of audi alteram partem is applicable to this case, as an order passed against a person without hearing him is contrary to the principles of natural justice. That apart, the appellant/petitioner is a banker, and if such orders are passed dismissing recovery claims without hearing the Bank, it will lead to financial loss to the Bank, which holds public money, as banks are the custodian of public funds. In this case, it cannot be treated as a mere single case, but it constitutes a violation of the principles of