IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1977 of 2010 M/S PATNA URBAN & RURAL MARKETING AGENCY, Sheohar House, Pirmohani, Kadam Kuan, Patna, through its Proprietor, Vishwanath Prasad Agrawal, son of Late Dwarika Prasad Agrawal, at present residing at Mohalla Sikandarpur, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna. 2. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Exhibition Road, Branch, Patna. 3. The Union of India, through Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. …….Respondents. ----------- 02. 08.02.2010 Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi and Mrs. Nilu Agrawal for the contesting Canara Bank. With consent of parties, the application is being heard and disposed off at this stage itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the order-sheet of the proceedings in M.A. No. 12 of 2000 as before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna refers to order dated 11.05.2009 passed therein. That order of the Presiding Officer clearly notes that earlier after hearing the parties the matter was reserved for consideration for passing an order while the matter was so pending. The Presiding Officer was transferred and new Presiding Officer had taken charge. He fixed 15.07.2009 as the date for hearing argument afresh as was required to be done. On 15.07.2009 the order-sheet notes that no work could be done as the Bar Association was abstaining for working. The next date was fixed being the next day for argument and on the next day 2 orders were reserved wherein it has not been noted that any party was heard at all and on the day after, orders have been passed being 17.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case having been reserved for orders they had no intimation of the date fixed and on the date fixed, there was a strike and next day orders were reserved without hearing any party. Thus there was clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is pointed out that in terms of Section 19 (21) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act and Rule 16 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules that every order passed by the Tribunal has to be communicated to both the parties free of cost, has not been complied with and they were unaware of the date fixed as such none of the parties appeared on the last day i.e. on 16.07.2009. In my view, a right judgment pursuant to a wrong procedure can not be sustained. Not only must the judgment be there but it must be delivered after following due procedure of law. Here from the order-sheet itself, it is clear that on 16.07.2009 none of the parties were present or heard as they had no adequate notice whatever be the order, the order so passed is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and has to be set aside. Accordingly the order dated 17.07.2009 passed in M.A. No. 12 of 2000 by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna is set aside. 3 Noticing petitioner’s conduct in past, I fix 22nd of February, 2010 as the date when the Tribunal would take up the final hearing in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2000 and dispose it off in accordance with law after hearing the parties. No fresh notices are required to be issued to either of the party as both the petitioner and the Bank are represented and the order and the date is being fixed in their presence. The writ application is thus allowed with the said observation. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)