1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.351 of 2010 The Liquidator, The Miraj Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangli, Miraj (Under Liquidation) .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Mah. & ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.G.Deshmukh i/by Mr.Gautam Kanchanpurkar for Petitioner. Mrs.Neha Bhinde B Panel AGP for Res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.P.G.Mutalik for Res.No.3-in person. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 19th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent No.3, in person. 2.Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are some of the depositors of the Miraj Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangli (the Bank), which has since gone in liquidation and for which the Petitioner is appointed Liquidator. The Bank is an insured Bank. Under Section 110A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act), 2 an insured Co-operative Bank can be wound up only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank of India. That sanction has not been obtained. The order of appointment of the Petitioner as Liquidator is, therefore, not passed in accordance with law. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot come in custody and control of all the properties, effects and actionable claims or be entitled to the books, records and other documents of the Bank under Section 103(2) of the Act. The Liquidator also cannot exercise the powers under Section 105 of the Act. Similarly the order of winding up cannot take effect with respect to the creditors and contributors of the Bank under Section 106 of the Act and the Liquidator cannot realise the assets thereunder. In this situation, the Petitioner s case shall have to be considered. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are the depositors of the Bank. Their deposits matured. They were not repaid the amount on maturity. They filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. An order came to be passed for returning to the depositors the amounts on their deposits on 6.6.2007. The depositors took out the proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act for execution of the order. An order came to be passed on 4.2.2008 directing the Collector to recover the amounts under the Awards obtained by the depositors as arrears of the land revenue. A recovery certificate also came to be issued 3 on that date. The Bank challenged the order before the State Consumer Forum. Its Appeal was dismissed. The order passed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act was confirmed on 31.7.2008. The execution proceedings commenced. Notice of public auction has been issued on 29.12.2009. The Bank has impugned that notice. 3.It is contended on behalf of the Liquidator by Mr.Deshmukh that in 2006 itself the Reserve Bank of India imposed a moratorium upon the Bank. The Bank was directed not to pay any amount to any creditor in excess of Rs.1,000/-. 4.Another depositor had sued before the Consumer Forum and obtained an order which also came to be similarly challenged. The Appellate State Consumer Forum considered the moratorium imposed and, therefore, instead of dismissing the Appeal, directed the Bank to apply to the Reserve Bank of India, showing the dire need of the senior citizens for allowing them to withdraw more than Rs.1,000/-. The Reserve Bank has allowed further amounts to be disbursed to the depositors and those amounts have been disbursed as shown in the Schedule, Exhibit-K to the Petition. Nevertheless, the full amount has not been paid off. A sum of about Rs.5,40,000/- remains to be paid to 4 Respondent Nos.3 to 10 under the complaints filed by them before the Consumer Forum. 5.It is seen that the order of appointment of the Petitioner is not validly passed and hence it cannot be contended by the Bank that it has been wound up and a Liquidator has been appointed and, therefore, the Bank would not make any payment. Nevertheless, it is also seen that the moratorium has been imposed upon the Bank. There would be a number of depositors other than Respondent Nos.3 to 10. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 cannot be given a preferential treatment merely because of their complaints in the Consumer Forum in which they have obtained an Award which they seek to enforce. A sum of Rs.5,40,000/- remains to be paid despite Respondent Nos.3 to 10 have litigated to receive that amount. Hence the following order:- ORDER The Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- in the District Consumer Forum at Sangali within 2 weeks from today. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 shall be entitled to make whatever application they choose to make to the Reserve Bank of India to allow them to withdraw that amount, which the Reserve Bank may consider in its discretion. Consequently, the auction sale of the properties of the 5 Bank, which has been fixed for tomorrow in the Execution Application taken out by Respondent Nos.3 to 10 under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, shall not be proceeded with. 6.Rule is made absolute. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)