CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice is disposed of by the following order after hearing counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is an agriculturist. He is aggrievedby the certificate issued by the second respondent assistant registrar of co-operative societies, doddaballapur sub-division, doddaballapur, Bangalore district, under Section 12 of the Karnataka agricultural credit operations and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1974 (for short the act ). Pursuant to the certificate issued in favour of the first respondent central bank of India that certain sums of money are due by him, the third respondent tahsildar has taken steps to recover the amounts due under the said certificate as at Annexure-A as arrears of land revenue. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, petitioner anjanappahas approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality of the certificate namely on the ground that he had no reasonable opportunity contemplated under Section 12 of the act when he had in response to the summons issued by the second respondent assistant registrar of co-operative societies entered appearance through counsel and had taken time to file objections. On the adjourned date, before he and his counsel could appear before the second respondent, though belatedly, the second respondent proceeded to issue mechanically a certificate as prayed for by the first respondent bank and therefore he has been denied the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Section 12 of the aforementioned act. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 2, 3 and 4 are representedby the learned high court government pleader, who was directed to secure the records and she has produced the records of the case. The court, at the lime of passing this Order, has perused the records. ( 5 ) WHAT emerged from the perusal of therecords is, petitioner was directed to appear before the assistant registrar of co-operative societies as per summons dated 22-11-1988 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 14-12-1988 at 11 a. m. the order sheet maintained shows that on 14-12-1988 case was called and the petitioner bank was present duly represented and for respondent one Sri H. V. Rajaram filed power and the case was adjourned to 19-12-1988 at 10-30 a. m. the order sheet is signed by Sri H. V. Rajaram, apparently the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent as well as someone else representing the plaintiff bank. On 19-12-1988 the order sheet reads as follows:"case called. Petitioner present and respondent absent and his counsel also not appeared. The respondent has obtained a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for dairy purpose as on 30-9-1982. The respondent is due to the bank to the tune of Rs. 8,424/ -. Respondent is due Rs. 8424/- only at 12. 5 per cent from 1-10-1988. Pronounced in the open court. Sd/-xxx assistant registrar of co-operative societies, doddaballapur sub-division, doddaballapur. "pursuant to the above, certificate has been issued, which is found at page 11 of the records. A scrutiny of that certificate shows it is part of the stationery of the bank which apparently it has prepared such forms in bulk. Under 'petitioner', central bank of India with its address is printed. So also, the designation of the officer to certify is printed. That leaves no doubt in the mind of this court that the stationery to issue the certificate has been supplied by the bank. All that the second respondent has done is to fill up the blank spaces by inserting the sum of Rs. 84247- in figures as well as words and also subscribing the name of the petitioner in the column 'respondent'. In other words, the grant of certificate is mechanical as also the order extracted above. In the face of these facts, which may not be disputed, it is useful to see the language employed in Section 12 of the act. Section 12 reads as" (1) on an application made by a credit agency for the recovery of arrears of any sum due to it by an agriculturist towards the financial assistance given to him and on its furnishing a statement of accounts in respect of the arrears, the prescribed officer may after making such enquiries as he deems fit and after giving the agriculturist a reasonable opportunity of being heard, grant a certificate for the recovery of the amount stated therein to be due. (2) a certificate by the prescribed officer under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive as to the arrears due. The arrears stated to be due therein shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue. " ( 6 ) THE records disclose that a statementof account was filed along with the application. (2) a certificate by the prescribed officer under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive as to the arrears due. The arrears stated to be due therein shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue. " ( 6 ) THE records disclose that a statementof account was filed along with the application. Whether a copy of that statement was furnished to the respondent petitioner or his counsel cannot be made out from the records or the order sheet. The order sheet is written very casually and in totally illegible handwriting. Though the date 10-12-1988 is written in the hand of the officer, whether it was done at 10-30 a. m. is not evidenced by any indication in writing. The writ petitioner has however averred that he and his counsel appeared a little late and by then the order had been passed. That assertion has not been denied by any statement of objection filed by the respondent. In fact no statement of objections has been filed in this case. ( 7 ) A reasonable opportunity as judiciallyunderstood, regard being had to a catena of decisions of this court as well as other high courts and the Supreme Court, is not an empty formality. Issuing certificate contemplated under Section 12 of the act is a quasi judicial Act, where the prescribed officer has to apply his mind and satisfy the requirements or procedure prescribed by law. When the law provides for a reasonable opportunity, it includes furnishing a copy of the statement inviting objections if any and thereafter apply his mind to the material placed before him, hear arguments if any and then pass an order setting out the reasons as to why the certificate has to be issued. ( 8 ) FROM what has been narrated and extractedabove in the course of this Order, no statement of the dues claimed by the petitioner bank appears to have been furnished in duplicate to be served on the respondent's counsel. Therefore, this court has to presume that the statement was not furnished to the other side. Such denial of documents on which the bank relied upon to establish its claim certainly falls short of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, this court has to presume that the statement was not furnished to the other side. Such denial of documents on which the bank relied upon to establish its claim certainly falls short of reasonable opportunity. The fact that on the adjourned date 19-12-1988 after mere recording of the presence and absence of the parties, grant of certificate mechanically in a format supplied by the bank without examining the representative of the bank in support of the statement filed, shows that no enquiry contemplated under Section 12 has been held. ( 9 ) FOR the above reasons, the order is unsustainableand clearly opposed to the express Provisions contained in Section 12 of the act and as such it is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law and the observations made in the course of this order after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner here and furnishing him with all the documents on which the bank relies upon for the issuance of the certificate for recovery. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .