ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as Director of the 3rd respondent–PICARD Bank, Koppa in Chickmagalore District, exercising his power in terms of the provision contained under Section 29-C(a) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that he was a defaulter in paying the loan availed from the 3rd respondent – Bank. This order of the Assistant Registrar has been confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chickmagalore vide Annexure-G. Therefore, petitioner has challenged the order passed in appeal as well. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority has reduced the period of disqualification to contest the elections from five years to one year. 2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that subsequent to disqualification of the petitioner, election has been held to the post of Director and another person has been elected in the place of petitioner. 3. Main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that without giving opportunity of hearing and without considering the objections filed and the documents produced by the petitioner, the Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order at Annexure-C on 01.02.2017 disqualifying the petitioner and that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to the said aspect of the matter and has, without considering the contentions raised regarding total lack of opportunity provided to the petitioner mechanically disposed of the appeal though by reducing the period of disqualification to one year from five years. 4. In the light of the above contention raised which was substantiated by producing the order sheet maintained by the Assistant Registrar at Annexure-B, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to address the Court with regard to this important aspect. Indeed, on 27.06.2017 this Court passed the following order: “On perusal of the order sheet maintained by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-B, it is seen that petitioner herein had filed objections enclosing four documents and had sought for time to address his arguments. Whereas, in the final order passed by respondent No.2 disqualifying the petitioner on the ground he was a defaulter, respondent No.2 proceeds on the basis that despite grant of sufficient time, petitioner had not filed any objection. Whereas, in the final order passed by respondent No.2 disqualifying the petitioner on the ground he was a defaulter, respondent No.2 proceeds on the basis that despite grant of sufficient time, petitioner had not filed any objection. Therefore, prima facie, respondent No.2 has to explain under what circumstances he has proceeded to pass the order without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that two days time may be granted finally to respond to the same. Re-list on 29.06.2017.” 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that as fair opportunity had been given prior to 31.01.2017, the Assistant Registrar did not provide further opportunity to the petitioner. She also points out that Appellate Authority has reduced the penalty by modifying the disqualification from five years to one year, and therefore, it could not be said that there was non-application of mind. 6. On consideration of the respective contentions and on perusal of the order sheet maintained by the Assistant Registrar at Annexure-B, I find that on 30.01.2017, the Assistant Registrar granted time to the petitioner to file his objections and listed the matter on the very next day i.e., on 31.01.2017 at 3.00 p.m. On 31.01.2012, petitioner filed his objections producing four documents in support of his case. He sought for time to address arguments. The Assistant Registrar refused to grant time and posted the matter for orders. On 01.02.2017, he passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner holding that he was a defaulter. In the body of the order, the Assistant Registrar records that although petitioner had been notified and called upon to file his objections, he had failed to file any objections and give any statement. He proceeds to hold that petitioner failed to establish that he was not a defaulter. 7. It is not the petitioner who had to establish that he was not a defaulter. It was for the bank to establish that petitioner was a defaulter. Indeed, petitioner had filed objections and had produced four documents. The Assistant Registrar did not take the trouble of looking into those documents and the objection filed. He hurriedly passes the impugned order. It is, therefore, clear that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the Assistant Registrar has not applied his mind to the relevant materials on record. 8. This order was challenged in appeal. The Assistant Registrar did not take the trouble of looking into those documents and the objection filed. He hurriedly passes the impugned order. It is, therefore, clear that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the Assistant Registrar has not applied his mind to the relevant materials on record. 8. This order was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Authority has also not considered the documents that petitioner had filed along with objections. It is thus clear that the Appellate Authority has also not applied its mind to the defence taken by the petitioner. Thus, there is miscarriage of justice. 9. An order of disqualification entails serious consequences on an elected representative. The same has to be passed after providing fair and reasonable opportunity to the persons concerned and by passing a reasoned order. Indeed, Counsel for the petitioner is right and justified in bringing to the notice of the Court proviso to sub-clause (a) of Section 29-C of the Act, which states that no order shall be made under sub-section (8) of Section 29-C unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the person against whom the order was to be made. 10. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to petitioner to produce any other documents and lead such evidence as is permissible in law. The Assistant Registrar is also required to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to respondent no.3-Bank and then pass a reasoned order. Ordered accordingly.