1 wp10159.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10159 OF 2010 Shankarrao S/o Bhausaheb Phulari and others ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Bhausaheb S/o Kashinath Kajbe and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Markad, advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr. S.R. Dheple, advocate for respondent no.6. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 17th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for petitioners contends that in view of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22nd December, 2010 in Writ Petition no. 5223 of 2009 and other connected matters, the issue is concluded and District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to take action personally against the Directors/ Committee members of any Co-operative society. He also relies upon certain other judgments delivered by this Court in identical matters to urge, that view has been consistently followed. 2. Mr. D.R. Markad appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 points out that the grievance in this respect was already made in Writ Petition no. 7101 of 2009 and on 5th August, 2010, this Court permitted the petitioner therein to approach the State Commission in appeal and continued the interim protection for a period of 15 2 wp10159.10 days. In this view of the matter, according to Advocate Mr. Markad, the second Petition in this cause is not maintainable. 3. Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for petitioners states that Writ Petition no. 7101 of 2009 was filed by the society and the Committee members/ Directors in their personal capacity were neither the petitioners nor the respondents. According to him, therefore, the judgment dated 5th August, 2010 is not relevant in the present circumstances. In the alternative and without prejudice to this contention, he also urged that when it is found that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction, liberty to present petitioners to approach State Commission for similar cause is empty formality. He contends that in this view of the matter, the objection raised by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 must be rejected and this petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Perusal of the papers shows that the District Consumer Forum has decided the complaint no. 211 of 2008 on 25.07.2008. The proceedings under Section 25 instituted vide Misc. Application (Execution) no. 123 of 2009 are then decided on 16th September, 2009. Thereafter, the society of which the present petitioners are/were committee members approached this Court in Writ Petition no. 7101/2009 challenging the order dated 25th July, 2008. Had society succeeded in challenge in that situation the present petitioners would have been benefited. The contention that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings in writ Petition is therefore not very relevant at this stage. While adjudicating that challenge, this Court found that the remedy of filing appeal to State Forum was available and hence has disposed of that Petition with liberty to them to approach State Commission in appeal and 3 wp10159.10 continued interim order earlier granted by it on 3rd November, 2009 for a period of 15 days. 5. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 point out that accordingly, the appeal was also filed by society and that appeal was not further prosecuted. 6. At this stage, I am not inclined to accept that the Writ Petition no. 7101 of 2009 was not for the benefit of present petitioners. In view of the judgment dated 5th August, 2010, the present petitioners could have very well file appeal and pointed out absence of jurisdiction to the Consumer Forum. I am inclined to grant the petitioners before this Court time of one week to file appeal before the State Commission raising necessary grievance. Interim orders granted in present matters on 26th October, 2010 shall continue for a period of four weeks and it shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. 7. With this directions and observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp10159.10