WP 989/2011 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 989/2011 PRAKASH SHRIKRUSHNA RISBUD AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. Mr. Shailesh P. Bramhe, Advocate for petitioners Mr. B.L. Sagar – Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. Date : 7th March, 2011 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the warrants issued on 27th September, 2009 by respondent No.3 - District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalgaon against the petitioners, in execution application No. 24/2009. They have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15/07/2008 as well as the execution petition No. 24/2009 pending before respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment and order dated 15/07/2008 WP 989/2011 2 passed by respondent No. 3 in Complaint No. 117/2009 as well as the order dated 27/09/2009 passed in execution petition No. 24/2009, are passed by respondent No.3 ex-parte. Even notices were not issued before passing these orders. He submits that the petitioners never received notice issued by respondent No.3 in Complaint No. 117/2008 and that they were not aware of those proceedings pending before District Consumer Redressal Forum, till December, 2010. He then invited our attention to the judgment and order passed by this Court in a group of writ petitions dated 22/12/2010 (Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Rajashree Rajkumar Chaudhary in Writ petition No. 5223/2009 and other petitioners in the group). In this group of writ petitions, the following questions were considered: 1 “Firstly, it is contended that the Complaints against the petitioners as well as the Co-operative Credit Societies / Banks would not be entertain able before the District Consumer Forum, as the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall have no applicability in respect of functions carried out by the Co-operative Credit Societies / Banks. There is a special enactment in the form of Maharashtra Co- WP 989/2011 3 operative Societies Act, 1960, which provides for presentation of disputes to the Co-operative Court and in view of availability of remedy under the special statute, the complaints ought not to have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2 The second ground of attack is that in any eventually, even assuming that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has applicability, the Directors of the banks or members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Credit societies can not be held responsible and no liability can be fixed against them, without observing the procedure as prescribe under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. It is contended that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Societies / Directors of the Banks.” 2 All the writ petitions, in this group were allowed and the orders passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum were quashed and set aside and it was clarified that the Co-operative Society / Credit Co-operative Society / Bank are liable to meet the WP 989/2011 4 liability and that the orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum can very well be executed against such bank / Co-operative Society and not against Managing Committee / Directors / past Directors. 3 It is against this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach District Consumer Redressal Forum seeking cancellation of the warrants and for other appropriate reliefs, relying upon the aforementioned judgment of this Court in the group of writ petitions, contending that the original order dated 15/07/2008 passed in complaint No. 1171/2008 itself is nullity, insofar as petitioners are concerned. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. If the petitioners file application, as afore mentioned, the District Consumer Redressal Forum shall consider the same in accordance with the law and in the light of judgment of this Court dated 22/12/2010 passed in the group of writ petitions, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within period of eight weeks from date of filing of such application. The petitioners to file the application within a period of two WP 989/2011 5 weeks from today. Till the application of the petitioners is entertained and decided by the Dispute Consumer Forum, non bailable warrant issued on 27/09/2009 shall remain stayed. 4 With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. All contentions of the parties on merit are kept open. It is needless to mention that the District Consumer Redressal Forum shall pass order on the application that will be filed by the petitioners, only after issuing notice to the original complainant and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. A.V. NIRGUDE,J. D.B. BHOSALE,J. ts k/