Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Will an Appellant Authority or Revisional Authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act be justified in dismissing or rejecting an appeal/revision for failure of the appellant/revision petitioner to pay the required fees without according an opportunity to him to rectify the defect? That is the question arising for decision in this case. 2. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 appeal before the Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, challenging the order passed under S.83 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. It so happened that the petitioner had not paid the required fees. The first respondent therefore passed Ext. P8 order rejecting the appeal for non-payment of fees. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is prepared to pay up the fees and that had the first respondent pointed out the defect earlier, he would have readily cured the defect. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as clear from the note under R.124A of the Rules, the fee of Rs. 100/- prescribed under R.124A(1) has to be paid in advance into the Treasury. However, he fairly brought to the notice of the Court the provision in R.124(6) as well according to which the appellate or revising authority has to call upon the appellant or the revision petitioner, as the case may be, to remedy the defects, if any, within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice and only if there is failure on the part of the party concerned to remedy the defects, the petition of the appeal might be dismissed. 5. It is true that there is some conflict between the note under R.124A on the one hand and R.124(6) on the other. Justice demands a harmoneous interpretation of the two provisions. It is to be mentioned here that R.124 is a new provision brought in through amendment made on 27.6.1989. Till then it was R.124 that was in vogue according to which the requirement of opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect was the condition precedent for a dismissal. I do not think that any contrary intention to dispense with such an opportunity is evident in R.124A. Of course, the general rule prescribed by that provision is that the fees should be paid in advance. That,however, does not make the provision mandatory justifying summary dismissal of the appeal or revision on that ground alone. I do not think that any contrary intention to dispense with such an opportunity is evident in R.124A. Of course, the general rule prescribed by that provision is that the fees should be paid in advance. That,however, does not make the provision mandatory justifying summary dismissal of the appeal or revision on that ground alone. Even if the authority finds that the requirement of payment of fees in advance has not been complied with, it will still be bound to issue a notice calling upon the party to cure the defect as contemplated in R.124(6) of the Rules. In view of this position, the dismissal of the appeal through Ext. P8 is unjustified. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed and Ext. P8 is set aside. The petitioner is called upon to pay up the fees of Rs. 100/- required under R.124A within a period of three weeks from this date and to produce the receipt before the first respondent. On production of chalan receipt along with a copy of this judgment, the first respondent will take back Ext. P7 to his files and proceed with the same in accordance with law.