1 wp7157.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7157 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8649 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8648 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8650 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8651 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. M.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.A. Pradhan, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Kulkarni for petitioner, Mr. Pradhan for respective respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Mr. Kulkarni gives up challenge in so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (co-operative banks) are concerned with liberty to raise it in appeal before the 2 wp7157.10 State Forum. He pressed his challenge to the extent of action personally taken against the petitioners nos. 3 to 20 by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 23rd December, 2010 in Writ Petition no. 5223 of 2009. Learned counsel contends that such individual action against the office bearers is not permissible. He also invites attention to the orders passed on 17th March, 2011 in Writ Petition Nos. 10161/2010 and 10159/2010. According to him, in this situation, the impugned orders need to be quashed and set aside. 3. Advocate Mr. Pradhan points out that all the petitioners were parties to proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and orders passed in 2008 were never questioned. The society also did not file any appeal. He invites attention to the change in stance by these petitioners to urge that at one point of time, they had attempted to show that even they are not Managing Committee members. He further argues that such persons who are not even members of the Managing Committee due to their inconsistence stance, are not entitled for any relief. In any case, according to learned counsel as alternate remedy provided by statute is available, this Court should refuse to interfere. 4. Perusal of the records show that the recovery proceedings have been initiated against the present petitioner nos. 3 to 20 and in those proceedings on 3 wp7157.10 18.03.2010, the action to proceed against their private/ personal property has been initiated. District Consumer Forum has on very same day directed further steps to be taken as per the provisions of Section 25(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. It is therefore obvious that when this Court has already found that District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to direct such personal action to be initiated, there is no point in directing the petitioner nos. 3 to 20 to file appeal. They are before this Court since July, 2010 and this Court has also extended them interim protection. 6. In this situation, the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 personally against the petitioner nos. 3 to 20 are set aside. Respondent no.3 is free to proceed for recovery against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (co-operative societies). The society is also free to file such proceedings as are open to it in law in the matter. 7. Writ Petitions are thus partly allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp7157.10