ASHOK BHAN, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Bank Limited, Gokak (here in after referred to as 'the bank') has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the bank has been dismissed. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 are the members of the bank. They were removed from the membership by a resolution in the Managing Committee dated, August 19, 1988 on the ground that they were defaulters and the amount had to be recovered by resorting to execution proceedings. R-l to R-3 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bailhongal. Vide his order dated 28th february, 1988, the Assistant Registrar, dismissed the petition. An appeal was preferred by R-l to R-3 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') which was numbered as 204 of 1990. The Tribunal vide its order dated 28th October, 1993 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative societies and consequently allowed the respondents to continue as members of the petitioner-bank. ( 3 ) BANK filed a writ petition contending that the Tribunal has passed the order under challenge without notice to the counsel for the petitioner. It was stated in Para No. 4 of the petition that records were received by the office of the Tribunal from the office of the Assistant registrar on 27th August, 1990. Head Office of the Tribunal is at Bangalore. Tribunal transferred the appeal to its Belgaum Camp Office and posted for hearing on 31st December, 1990. On the said date the representative of the bank went to Belgaum Camp to attend the case. As there was no sitting on that day at Belgaum Camp a date was given as 12th April, 1991. On 12th April, 1991 also there was no sitting. Representative of the bank was informed that the notice of future date of hearing would be 'sent to him afterwards'. Representative waited till 13-12-1993, but no notice was served on him about the next date of hearing. Appellant-bank later on learnt that the Tribunal had disposed of the matter vide its order dated 28th October, 1993. Representative of the bank was informed that the notice of future date of hearing would be 'sent to him afterwards'. Representative waited till 13-12-1993, but no notice was served on him about the next date of hearing. Appellant-bank later on learnt that the Tribunal had disposed of the matter vide its order dated 28th October, 1993. The fact that the order was passed in the absence of the counsel for the appellant and without intimation to him, has gone almost unrebutted. ( 4 ) CONTENTION raised by the counsel for the respondent was that the order of the Tribunal was based on several decisions of this Court on the point in issue and therefore even if the order impugned had been made without hearing the counsel for the bank, the same did not cause any prejudice to the appellant or resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned single Judge accepted the contention of the counsel for the respondent presuming that even if no notice was served on the appellant and as the point in issue was covered by few decisions of this Court, no prejudice was caused to the appellant resulting in miscarriage of justice and sustained the order passed by the Tribunal which had been passed without issuing notice to the appellant. Without burdening the order with the judgments of the Apex Court but reiterating the principle that order passed in violation of principles of natural justice without hearing the concerned parties is bad in law and is unsustainable, we proceed to decide this appeal on the limited ground that the order passed by the tribunal being in violation of principles of natural justice without hearing the counsel for the appellant deserves to be set aside. We do not propose to go into the merits of the dispute. ( 5 ) IN our view the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. Question of decision on merits canot be gone into unless the principles of natural justice of providing a hearing to the appellant had been observed. As the order passed by the tribunal was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside. Question of decision on merits canot be gone into unless the principles of natural justice of providing a hearing to the appellant had been observed. As the order passed by the tribunal was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and that of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for redeciding the appeal on merits after affording due opportunity to the parties concerned. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30th July, 1998. --- *** --- .