1 wp-6261-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6261 OF 2010 Raghunathrao Ganpatrao Nagargoje & Ors...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to the Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Welfare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Subodh Gokhale, for the petitioners. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. Mrs. A.R.S.Baxi for respondent No.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 25th October, 2010. P.C. Heard. 2. The petitioners claim to be the directors of Respondent No.3 Co- operative Bank and respondent No.7 had filed complaint No.255 of 2006 against the bank, its officers and the directors, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum at Sangli and the 2 wp-6261-10 said complaint was allowed by the Forum on 4th December, 2006. When the complaint was pending the Reserve Bank of India issued an order on 27th October, 2006 and imposed restrictions on the banking transactions of the respondent No.3 bank and as a result of which the bank could not pay a sum of more than Rs.1,000/- to any depositor and that is reflected in the order dated 4th December, 2006 as well, passed by the Forum at Sangli. Execution Application No.16 of 2007 was filed by the complainant and on 7th June, 2010 the Forum passed an order issuing arrest warrant against the directors. 3. It is submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on 30th July, 2007 the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, passed an order under Section 110-A(iii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and superseded the Board of directors of the respondent No.3 bank. In addition, Shri Shrikrishna Wadekar, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangli, was appointed as an Administrator in place of the Board of Directors so as to manage the affairs of the bank as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. On 28th August, 2008 the liquidator was appointed for the said bank under Section 110-A(iii) of the Maharashtra 3 wp-6261-10 Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Based on these orders it is submitted by the petitioners that it was the liquidator who could have been proceeded against for execution of the order passed by the Forum on 4th December, 2006 as he had taken over the management of the bank and the board was superseded. It is also submitted that a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not have been entertained at the behest of a depositor against the directors of a the Bank as the relationship between the depositor and the bank is not that of a buyer and seller or a trader and a consumer. It is also contended that the issue of deficiency in service would not arise between the banking transactions and in any case the Forum passed the order 4th December, 2006 without any authority in law. Thus both the orders i.e. the order dated 4th December, 2006 as well as the order dated 7th June, 2010 have been sought to be challenged in this petition. 4. As per Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act the orders passed by the District Forum are appealable and the appeal lies to the State Commission and, therefore, all the issues raised in this petition are required to be, at the first instance, decided by the State Commission. The second proviso below Section 15 which has been added in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with effect from 15th March, 2003 states that no 4 wp-6261-10 appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees whichever is less. 5. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3,4 and 6 and respondent No.6 is the liquidator. It has been stated that out of the total amount of Rs.3,32,977/- payable to the respondent No.7, the original complainant, an amount of Rs.2,32,977/- has already been paid and the balance amount of Rupees one lakh has been deposited by the petitioners with the District Forum after the order dated 7th June, 2010 was passed. Hence the requirements of the second proviso below Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have already been met and the appeal against the impugned order is required to be entertained. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even with reference to the order dated 7th June, 2010 the limitation period for filing an appeal has already expired and, therefore, he apprehensions as to whether the State Commission would entertain an appeal. 6. As the entire amount under recovery is either paid or deposited with the Forum, and the issues raised by the petitioners are required to be 5 wp-6261-10 decided by the State Commission at the first instance, we deem it appropriate that the petitioners are allowed to file appeal before the State Commission and the appeals could be decided on merits if they are filed within the period that we may grant to the petitioners and by leaving all the issues raised before us open and to be decided by the State Commission. 7. Hence, we direct that if the petitioners file an appeal against the orders dated 4th December, 2006 and 7th June, 2010 within a period of two weeks from today the same to be heard and decided on its own merits and without raising the issue of limitation. 8. The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)