1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11520 OF 2010 Abhay Narayan Raje & Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus The Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for for respondent No. 2. Mr. S.S. Shete, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Wani for the petitioner, Advocate Shri. S.S. Shete for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, service upon respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is dispensed with. 3. Contention of Advocate Shri. Wani is that petitioners have became members of Managing Committee later i.e. after adjudication of dispute by Consumer Forum. The proceedings for execution of recovery 2 certificate issued by Consumer Forum were filed against the Board of Administrators though the then administrators as a party in person. Later on without any notice and opportunity to petitioners, the Consumer Forum has permitted them to be brought on record and has issued process against them. The contention is thus, the petitioners have threat of arrest though there is no direction of Consumer Forum against them. He is also relying upon the unreported judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 5223/2009 in the case of Sau. Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sow. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari & Ors.and the other connected matters to substantiate his contentions. 4. Shri. Shete is opposing the request on merits as according to him then order of Consumer Forum is not challenged. Persons in administration can very well be noticed by the Consumer Forum. Learned A.G.P. is also supporting the impugned order. 5. I find that the Consumer Forum was not required to considere the controversy which is settled by unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Sau. Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sow. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari & Ors. dated 22.12.2010 (supra). Not only this when petitioners were not party, at the time Consumer Forum issued directions to Society, the action is to issue process against them directly by permitting them to be impleaded for the first time. I have already considered similar challenge in Writ Petition Nos. 11067 and 11071/2010 3 decided on 21.2.2011. 6. After hearing respective counsel, I am satisfied that the present situation can be taken care by permitting the petitioner to approach District Consumer Forum with their grievance and by filing appropriate application/representation before it for recall of orders issued against them. 7. Identical orders passed by respondent No. 3 in two matters are challenged in this petition. Hence, petitioner to pay one more set of Court Fee by 1st March 2011. 8. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shall appear before the District Consumer Forum/ respondent No. 3 on 8th March 2011. The petitioner shall file appropriate application before the Forum and thereafter respondents shall file their reply to the same. The respondent No. 3 - Forum shall decide that application in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2011. 9. The impugned order passed on 14.10.2010 in recovery application Nos. 549/2008 and 548/2008 are quashed and set aside for that purpose. Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 4 [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp11520.10