WP 9964/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9964 OF 2010 Sharad deoram Rane, R/o. Hingona, Tq. Yaval, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus Sau. Geeta Omkar Patil & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi h/f. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally by consent. The controversy is covered by judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 5223/2009 in the case of Sau. Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sow. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari & Ors. and other connected matters. 2. Shri. Gholap, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has urged that petitioner has approached this Court almost after one year and did not raise appropriate defence before Consumer Forum. His contention WP 9964/2010 2 is those defence were not raised before Consumer Forum, this Court cannot for the first time look into the same. He has further argued that as respective respondents occupied responsible position he was joined before Consumer Forum and it was obligatory for him to appear before Consumer Forum. He also contends that he could have challenged the order of District Consumer Forum in appeal, but that has not been done. Hence, according to him, in this situation, the view taken by learned Single Judge has not applicable in present matter. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court has found that in view of provisions of section 36 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Society is an artificial person. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therefore had relationship only with that artificial person i.e. Co-operative Society. It is held that if individual liability is to be fastened, the procedure is provided under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In other words, this Court has found District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to pass such orders holding directors personally responsible for any lapse or omission on the part of society. I have considered this on 21.2.2011 while deciding Writ Petition Nos. 11067 and 11071 of 2010. 4. As the finding is of totally absence of jurisdiction in District Consumer Forum, appearance by petitioner before the Forum or the question of raising any objection to its jurisdiction by him is not decisive. By his act or omission District Consumer Forum will not get WP 9964/2010 3 jurisdiction which it does not possess. 5. In the circumstances, I find no substance in objections being raised by Advocate Shri. Gholap. The impugned order dated 5.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 1801/2008 are therefore quashed and set aside insofar as the personal liability of petitioner is concerned. The said order is therefore modified to that extent and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are free to execute the same against the respondent No. 4 - Society only in accordance with law. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp9964.10