1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2682 OF 2009 Prakash s/o. Amrutlal Changedia ....Petitioner. Versus Shrikant s/o. Nayansukh Kataria and Ors. ....Respondents. Shri. C.R. Thorat-Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the former Chairman of the respondent No. 2 - Shri. Mahavir Gramin Patsanstha Maryadit, challenging the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the State Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By this order, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 16,000/- and the time was extended for deposit of said amount up to 4.4.2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this is an order passed against the respondent No. 2 - Society. The respondent No. 2 - Society is in existence and therefore, if at all any amount is required to be paid, the same may be recovered from the respondent No. 2. He further submits that the petitioner is the former Chairman of the said Society and now he has no concern with that Society and hence, the provision regarding deposit of 50 % amount under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable. 2 3. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced below :- "Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period." Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less." It is not in dispute that the District Forum has passed an order against the present petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal before the State Commission by the present petitioner. Last proviso of Section 15 creates a bar for entertaining the appeal and it states that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission, unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less. The petitioner has preferred an appeal and the Tribunal has, therefore, in terms of this proviso directed to deposit of the said amount. No fault can be found with the order passed by the State Commission. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2680.09