IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10495 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MR.P.S.SAJEEV, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10495 OF 2009 (F) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner Bank is against Exts.P2 and P4. 2. Facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that being a Scheduled Regional Rural Bank, the 2nd respondent had availed of certain gold loans. It is stated that in view of the fact that the amount was due from him, they have exercised their lien over the gold as provided under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act as per Ext.P1. It is stated that subsequently 2nd respondent produced Ext.P2, an ex parte order passed by the 1st respondent directing release of gold ornaments. It is stated that immediately they entered appearance before the 1st respondent and filed Ext.P3 objection, but however they were not heard. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent filed yet another IA seeking orders under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act against the petitioner, on which Ext.P4 order of attachment was passed. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 3. The main contention raised is one of principles of WPC 10495/09 :2 : natural justice, in as much as Ext.P2, an ex parte positive order passed without putting notice on the petitioner or hearing them. It is also their contention that they having filed Ext.P3 objection, before passing Ext.P2 order, the matter should have been reconsidered and fresh orders passed. 4. Though notice by special messenger was ordered to be served and service is complete, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 5. In this writ petition, I am not called upon to decide on the factual correctness of the averments made, but, I must certainly say that in a case of this nature, before the 1st respondent passes any order in the nature of Ext.P2, principles of natural justice require that the person affected should have been heard. 6. In several cases, both the Apex Court and this Court have held that without issuing notice or hearing the parties, order of this nature should not be passed and I have no reason to think that the 1st respondent has any exemption from this general principle of law. 7. Therefore, Ext.P2 certainly deserves to be set aside WPC 10495/09 :3 : and I do so. For the very same reasons, I am inclined to think that Ext.P4 deserves to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner on IA 34/09 filed by the 2nd respondent in CC 70/09 and pass fresh orders. 8. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp