1 wp7831.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7831 OF 2010 Chandrakant Jayantilal Kothari, R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Near Gujrat Sweet Mart, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon & Ors. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Vaibhav Ananda Mahajan, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Plot No.8, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq.&Dist. Jalgaon, & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17-04-2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon in Complaint Nos. 1667 of 2008. 2 wp7831.10 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, saddling the liability in respect of payment of dues/damages on the members of the Managing Committee/Directors/Ex-Directors of the Co-operative Societies, as held by this Court in the case of Sau. Varsha Ravindra Isai vs. Sow. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari and others in Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2009. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that this petition may be allowed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2009 and other petitions, delivered on 22-12-2010 and more particularly Para-24 and 25 of the said judgment. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has taken a view that the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum saddling the liability in respect of payment of dues/damages on the members 3 wp7831.10 of the Managing Committee/Directors/past Directors is concerned, the same is erroneous. In short, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 is Ex-Chairman of respondent No.3 Gujrathi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon, registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and other members are Ex-Directors of respondent No.3 society. Though the respondents are served, none appears for them. Therefore, the position as stated in para-5 of the petition remain undisputed. 5. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009 and others (supra) and also in Writ Petition No.11541 of 2010 in the case of Jagannath Dayaram Lokhande 4 wp7831.10 and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and for the same reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) and (D). The orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon saddling the liability so far the petitioners herein are concerned, is quashed and set aside. 7. It is clarified that the Co-operative Societies / Credit Societies / banks are liable to meet the liability and the orders passed by the Consumer Forum can very well be executed against such banks / co-operative credit societies. 8. The petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JULY11