1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 841 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 842 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 843 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 841 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 842 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 843 OF 2011 *** 1. This Court has already issued notice in the matter on 11th February, 2011. Shri Patil has appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.842 of 2011. Respondent Nos.3 to 27 in Writ Petition No.842 of 2011 are shown as co-directors along with petitioners therein. Shri Bhokarikar has appeared for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.841 of 2011 and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.843 of 2011. Other respondents therein are also co-directors with the Petitioners therein. 2. Shri Bhokarikar is seeking time to file reply and to argue the matter. However, in 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 841 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 842 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 843 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. similar matters, this Court has already heard learned counsel and passed appropriate orders. Hence, his request for adjournment is rejected. 3. Shri Bhokarikar contends that in earlier matter the petitioners before this Court were not sitting directors but were ex-directors. In the present matters the petitioners are the directors in office at the relevant time who resigned subsequently. 4. Shri Patil is supporting the impugned orders. 5. After hearing respective counsel I find controversy is covered by the judgment dated 23rd December, 2010 in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009. Similarly view is taken by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 11067 and 11071 of 2010 decided on 21st February, 2011. Distinction proposed by Advocate Mr. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 841 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 842 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 843 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Bhokarikar is not relevant at all. 6. This Court has found that in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no provision for fastening individual liability on directors/ managing committee members. It is possible only under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The same logic holds good in the present facts also. In this view of the matter, impugned orders passed by District Consumer Forum are quashed and set aside. The respective consumers are permitted to proceed with recovery against the society in accordance with law. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:2/05/2011. ans/841