1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2009 Madhukar Gulabchand Bhavsar } Age : 76 Years, Occ. : Nil, } R/o : 7, Sailani Colony, } Wadibhokar Road, Deopur } Dhule, Dist. Dhule. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through District Depupty } Registrar of Co-operative Societies } Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. The Collector, Dhule, } District : Dhule. } 3. Shri Samarth Sahakari Patpedhi } Maryadit, Dhule } Dist. Dhule through its President. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2 - State. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24/03/2010 2 JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard respective counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged 76 years. The petitioner had invested his retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 3,38,374/- vide various Fixed Deposit receipts with the respondent no. 3 – Co- operative Credit Society. The petitioner requested for refund of the said amount of deposit with interest. Respondent no. 3 avoided to refund the same. As such, the petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2008 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Dhule ( For short, ‘ the Forum ’ ). The Forum allowed the said Complaint thereby directed the respondent no. 3 to pay the amount of deposits to the petitioner along with interest. 4. In spite of the fact that the Forum had passed Judgment and order, the respondent no. 3 did not comply with the said Judgment. The petitioner was constrained to file Execution Petition bearing Darkhast No. 126 of 2008. In the said Darkhast, the Forum passed an order directing attachment of the property of the present respondent 3 no. 3 bearing CTS No. 1199 admeasuring 167.2 Sq.Meters situated at Dhule. 5. In spite of the same, no steps have been taken for realization of the said amount by the authorities. 6. The Forum vide its letter dated 18/11/2008 forwarded the Recovery Certificate to the Collector, Dhule for its execution i.e. to sell the property of the respondent no. 3 as mentioned therein. The same was received by the office of the Collector, Dhule on 19/11/2008. The petitioner also vide its representation, requested the Collector to execute the same, but to no avail. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik for action. The Division Commissioner, Nashik vide his letter dated 24/2/2009, asked the Collector, Dhule to do the needful. In spite of the same, no action has been taken by the authorities. 8. The predicament of the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2, but the respondent no. 2 has shown indifferent attitude and has failed to perform his duty of executing the same. 4 9. Taking into account the stock of the aforesaid facts, we hereby direct the respondent no. 2 to take action under section 25 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent no. 3 for implementation of the order dated 31/3/2008 passed in Complaint No. 21 of 2008. The said action should be taken within three months from today. 10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 5218.09 ( J )