wp10579.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.:10579 OF 2010 DILIP DATATTRAYA MAHALE VERSUS CHANDRAKANT HOLARAM SANGTANI AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.V. Wani, Adv. h/f Adv. Mr. Sant Kishor C. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: July 15, 2011 PER COURT: This petition is filed challenging the order dated 8th July, 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhule in Complaint Nos.453 of 2009. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhule has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, saddling the liability in respect of payment of dues/damages on the wp10579.10 2 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, vide judgment dated 22nd December, 2010. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be allowed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Judgment in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009 and other petitions, delivered on 22-12-2010 and more particularly Paragraphs 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 of the Managing Committee/Directors/past Directors is concerned, the same is erroneous. In short, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no wp10579.10 3 jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner is Director of respondent No.4 Shri Arihant Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Dhule, registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Though the respondents are served, none appears for them. Therefore, the position as stated in para-5 of the petition remains 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 and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and for the same reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. wp10579.10 4 6. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). The orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dhule saddling the liability so far the petitioner herein is 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.) PLK/*