1 wp11543.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11543 OF 2010 Satyashil Avinash Akole and others. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, advocate for respondent no. 9. Mrs. Chaitali Kutti, advocate for respondent no.6, 10, 11 and 15. Mr. P.B. Salunke with Mr.V.A. Pawar, advocate for respondent nos. 13 and 14. Mr. C.P. Patil, advocate for respondent no.16. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 17th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. M.S. Deshmukh for petitioners, Mr. Deshmukh for respondent no.5, Mr. Bhokarirkar for respondent no. 9, Mrs. Chaitali Kutti for respondent nos. 6, 10, 11 and 15, Mr. Salunke with Mr. Pawar for respondent nos. 13 and 14, Mr. C.P. Patil for respondent no.16 and learned and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Advocate Mrs. Kutti for respondent nos. 6, 10, 11 and 15 is seeking time to file reply. Request rejected. 2 wp11543.10 3. The controversy is covered by the judgment delivered today in Writ Petition no. 11541 of 2010. Mr. Bhokarikar however has urged that the depositors who approached the Consumer Forum may be or may not be the members of Co-operative Society. According to him that relation is therefore regulated by Indian Contract Act and not necessarily by Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Therefore, he states that the moment the provisions of Contract Act became applicable the individual director/committee member can not avoid his personal liability because of fiduciary capacity. He has also relied upon the judgment to show that when such person is not a member of Co- operative Society, the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are not applicable. In order to explain his contention, the learned counsel has invited attention to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 and reply affidavit filed in February, 2011. As the original reply is not tagged with record of Writ Petition, he has also made available the photo-stat copy of that reply, for perusal. 4. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that here District Consumer Forum has not recorded a finding that the relation between the parties is not covered by Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is not the case of the present respondents that they are not the members of petitioner no.10 (subsequently deleted) Co-operative Society. The contention raised by the learned counsel therefore can not be accepted. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel very faintly attempted to urge that as two learned Single Judge of this Court appear to have taken contradictory view, the matter should be referred to Division Bench. 3 wp11543.10 I do not notice any view contrary to the judgment dated 22nd December, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 5223/2009. Arguments therefore can not be accepted. 6. In the circumstances the orders dated 01.08.2009, 08.02.2008, 14.12.2009, 08.03.2010, 07.02.2008, 07.02.2008, 28.08.2008, 04.12.2009, 07.04.2008 and 04.02.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalgaon in Complaint No. 145/2009, 952/2007, 97/2009, 777/2009, 976/2007, 977/2007, 688/2008, 29/2009, 1209/2007 and 472/2009 respectively, are quashed and set aside. However, each petitioner shall pay 10 sets of court fees within a period of three weeks from today. If the deficit court fees is not paid, the Petition shall stand dismissed automatically. The certified copy be issued only after the deficit court fees is paid. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp11543.10