JUDGMENT S.K. Kader, J. 1. The petitioner herein, an agriculturist at Thodupuzha who has taken a loan of Rs. 34,000/- for the purpose of making improvements in her agricultural land from the Thodupuzha - Muvattupuzha Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., 2nd respondent herein, after executing a mortgage deed Ext. R1 as security for the said loan, seeks to quash Ext. P5 proceedings of the Sale Officer, the Ist respondent. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly assailed Ext. P5 mainly on the ground that S.12 of the Kerala Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1960 (Act 1 of 1960) hereinafter called 'the Act', has no application to the facts of the present case and in the alternative he contended that the mandatory provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.12 of the Act have been violated in this case resulting in serious prejudice to his client. The counsel also submitted that the respondents have failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denying the various allegations made in the petition. The counter affidavit states that Ex. R3 the statutory notice as contemplated under S.12(2) has been served on the petitioner and subsequently a reminder notice Ext. P3 was issued to the petitioner as she did not comply with the statutory notice aforementioned. It was also contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not utilise the loan for the specific purpose for which it has been granted that she misutilised the fund and violated Clause.12 of the mortgage deed Ext. R1, that thereby she has become liable to pay the entire mortgage amount and that inspite of notices she committed default and therefore by virtue of provisions in S.12, the bank is entitled to take action under S.12 of the Act. 4. S.12 reads: "12. Power of sale when to be exercised. R1, that thereby she has become liable to pay the entire mortgage amount and that inspite of notices she committed default and therefore by virtue of provisions in S.12, the bank is entitled to take action under S.12 of the Act. 4. S.12 reads: "12. Power of sale when to be exercised. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), where a power of sale without the intervention of the court is expressly conferred on the Central Mortgage Bank, or a primary mortgage bank, by the mortgage deed, the Board, or the Committee of such primary mortgage bank, or any person authorised by the Board or such Committee, as the case may be, shall, in case of default of payment of the mortgage money or any part thereof, have power, in addition to any other remedy available to them, to bring the mortgaged property to sale without the intervention of the court. (2) No such power shall be exercised unless -- (a) the Board or such Committee has given an opportunity to the mortgagor or mortgagors to show cause why the property may not be sold without the intervention of the court; (b) notice in writing requiring payment of such mortgage money or part thereof has been served upon - (i) the mortgagor or each of the mortgagors; (ii) any person who has any interest in or charge upon the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same; (iii) any surety for the payment of the mortgage debt or any part thereof; and (iv) any creditor of the mortgagor, who has in a suit for the administration of his estate obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged property; and (e) default has been made in payment of such mortgage money or part thereof for three months after such service: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 5. Relying on sub-s.(1) of S.12; the counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this sub-section can be applied only to a case where the petitioner mortgagor committed default in payment of any of the instalments as agreed to in the mortgage deed and cannot be applied in a case where the allegation is that the mortgagee misutilised the loan amount or failed to utilise the same for the specific purpose for which it has been granted. It is not disputed that, as per the terms of agreement in Ext. R1 mortgage deed, the petitioner mortgagor is empowered to use the amount of loan only for the specific purposes for which the loan has been granted and the loan amount should not be utilised for any other purpose and that in case the petitioner fails to utilise the amount for the purpose for which it was granted or misutilised the amount, the bank - mortgagee is entitled to recover the entire mortgage amount due in accordance with the provisions in S.12 of the Act. The Agricultural Officer of the Bank inspected the mortgaged property on 5-10-1982 and found that the petitioner has not utilised the loan amount for the purposes for which it was granted but on the other hand it was misutilised. Ext. R2 is said to be the report of the agricultural officer in this respect and subsequently also the agricultural officer inspected the property. It is not disputed that the mortgage amount demanded as per Ext. R3 has not been paid and the petitioner has committed default in that respect. Therefore on the facts and circumstances of the case, sub-s.(1) of S.12 squarely applies to the present case. 6. The next question for consideration is whether any of the provision in sub-s.(2) of S.12 has been violated. It is true that extra ordinary powers have been conferred under sub-s.(1) of S.12 to bring the mortgage property to sale without the intervention of the court and therefore it is necessary, particularly in order to see, that the officers do not exercise powers under this section arbitrarily or capriciously to insist on strict compliance of the provisions. It is true that extra ordinary powers have been conferred under sub-s.(1) of S.12 to bring the mortgage property to sale without the intervention of the court and therefore it is necessary, particularly in order to see, that the officers do not exercise powers under this section arbitrarily or capriciously to insist on strict compliance of the provisions. The sub-section clearly and categorically states that the power conferred under sub-s.(1) of S.12 shall not be exercised unless the Board or the committee of the primary mortgage bank, or the person authorised by the Board or committee as the case may be, (a) has given an opportunity to the mortgagor or mortgagors to show cause why the property should not be sold without the intervention of the court, (b) a notice in writing requiring the payment of the amount due under the mortgage is served upon the mortgagor and other persons mentioned in clauses (ii) to (vi) and (e) default has been made in payment of the mortgage money due for three months after service of the notice under sub clause (b). 7. The attack of the counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12 has been given to his client. This argument was attempted to be met by the counsel for the 2nd respondent submitting that Ext. R3 is the statutory notice issued to the petitioner and therefore there has been compliance of clause (a) sub-s.(2) of S.12. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that what is required under clause (a) is to give an opportunity to the mortgagor to show cause why the property should not be sold without the intervention of the court and what is required under clause (b) is the statutory notice in writing. There is noting in Ext. R3 to show that it is a show cause notice issued under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. The respondents have no case that Ext. R3 is a notice issued under clause (b) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. It would appear from the counter affidavit that Ext. P3 was only a reminder sent to Ext. R3. There is also nothing in Ext. P3 to show that it was sent under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. The respondents have no case that Ext. R3 is a notice issued under clause (b) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. It would appear from the counter affidavit that Ext. P3 was only a reminder sent to Ext. R3. There is also nothing in Ext. P3 to show that it was sent under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. There are no materials before this Court from which it can be concluded that the petitioner has been given an opportunity to show cause why the mortgaged property should not be sold without the intervention of the court as enjoined under clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12. It cannot be said that the petitioner has not been seriously prejudiced as a result of the contravention of this statutory provision. It is clear from sub-s.(2) of S.12, that fulfilment or compliance of certain requirement mentioned therein is a condition precedent to the exercise of powers under the sub-section. The provisions in this sub-section are mandatory and have to be strictly complied with. If a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which the power has to be exercised it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if these were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. (See AIR 1964 SC 358 ). In matters of this nature, as stated earlier, the statutory provisions have to be strictly and scrupulously complied with. Therefore, there is considerable force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.12 has not been complied with. In the result, this O. P. is allowed and Ext. P5 is set aside. It is made clear that this judgment will not in any way stand in the way of the 2nd respondent proceeding with the action taken against the petitioner under S.12 after duly complying with the requirements of sub-s.(2) of S.12 of the Act.