( 1 ) BY the Court. Petitioners are elected directors of Nirmal Co-operative housing Society Limited. ('society' for short ). The Annual General Body meeting was held on 29. 9. 2001. The Secretary due to ill-health went on long leave and the proceedings of the AGM could not be sent immediately to the authorities. The first petitioner-chairman of the Society sent a letter dated 5. 10. 2001 with regard to the meeting on 29. 9. 2001. Thereafter proceedings of the AGM were also sent in terms of Annexures-B 1, B2 and B3. Elections were held in March, 2000 and the petitioners were declared elected unopposed in terms of Annexure-C. Petitioners have five years term ending on 31. 3. 2005. Petitioners state that they came to know about the appointment of Special officer in the newspaper and that they are disqualified and on the same day a peon from the office of the first respondent served an order in terms of annexure-D with regard to their disqualification. They made an application for a copy of the order and the same was refused in terms of Annexure-E. Appeal was filed and the appeal is not maintainable. Petitioners challenged the order on the ground of violation of Section 124 of the Act. They also state that without an opportunity in terms of Section 29-C (8), the order is passed. ( 2 ) I issued notice on 29. 11. 2001. Petitioners states that by mistake an appeal has been filed and they would withdraw the appeal. It appears now the appeal is withdrawn. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the facts and grounds raised in these petitions. Mr. Muralidhar, learned HCGP has produced the records to contend that opportunity was given to the parties. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing, the following order is passed. Section 29-C provides for disqualification for membership of the committee under certain circumstances. Section 29-C (8) provides for a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the order to be made by the authority. It also provides for a communication of the order to the petitioners. Section 125 of the Act provides for service of notice under the Act. Section 29-C provides for disqualification for membership of the committee under certain circumstances. Section 29-C (8) provides for a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the order to be made by the authority. It also provides for a communication of the order to the petitioners. Section 125 of the Act provides for service of notice under the Act. A reading of these provisions would make it clear to me that a duty is "cast on the authorities to serve a notice in terms of the Act and hear the parties before passing any order. It is very much necessary in the light of the disqualification in terms of Section 29-C. In the case on hand, records have been produced by the parties. From the records it is seen that notice is not served by the Registrar in terms of Section 124. On the other hand, notices dated 5. 10. 2001 and 16. 10. 2001 were sent and the notice thereafter was pasted on 16. 10. 2001. The material on record, does not inspire confidence with regard to service on the petitioners in terms of Section 124 of the Act. In the notice dated 5. 10. 2001 there is some overwriting. It also does not reflect the name of the secretary or on whom the notice was tried to be served. In so far as the second notice dated 16. 10. 2001 is concerned it is seen that an enquiry is fixed on 29. 10. 2001. Here again there are several overwriting, deletions etc. The affixture date 16. 10. 2001 is also not happily worded and one of the names of the panchas is found missing. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the petitioners. Taking into consideration the object of the notice and the material on record, I deem it proper to set aside Annexure-D dated 30. 10. 2001 and the order dated 29. 10. 2001. The respondent are directed to serve a copy on the petitioners and hear them in terms of the proviso and thereafter proceed to pass orders in accordance with law. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to serve notice on the petitioners and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. With regard to the contention of violation, the said question is left open. Parties to bear their respective costs. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to serve notice on the petitioners and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. With regard to the contention of violation, the said question is left open. Parties to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .