wp11067.10- -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11067 OF 2010 Usha Yashwant Chaudhari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11071 OF 2010 Jagatrao Barku Patil ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri Shaikh, advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ..... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard advocates for the respective parties. 2 Looking to the nature of the controversy raised in these petitions, service upon respondent No.5 society is dispensed with. Shri wp11067.10- -2- Patil has contended that both the petitioners have raised objection that the consumer forum cannot fasten personal responsibility upon them. Relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.12.2010 delivered in writ petition No. 5223 of 2009, wherein this Court has observed that the Consumer Forum cannot fasten such personal liability upon the Directors, as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act do not contain necessary machinery for that purpose and the modality prescribed therefor under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, only needs to be followed. 3 Shri Shaikh for the respective consumer, who had approached the consumer forum argues that being the persons in the management, the petitioners are equally responsible for their activities and hence consumer forum has rightly found them liable. He further states that the present petitions proceed only on the basis of alleged resignation. Therefore, in view of these disputed questions of facts, according to him, the remedy to approach the State Consumer Forum under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act is more efficacious. 4 Learned A.G.P. has also adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 5 In view of the judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 (supra), it wp11067.10- -3- is clear that the Consumer forum lacks jurisdiction to fasten such liability upon the individual Director of the society. The consumer has got relationship with the society which is an artificial person in view of provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said judgment of the learned Single Bench therefore, squarely covers the controversy. 6 The present petitions are filed some time in December, 2010 when that judgment was not delivered. In the situation I find it empty formality to direct the petitioners to approach State forum. 7 In view of this, it is made clear that the orders and directions issued by the District Consumer Forum cannot be implemented personally i.e. against the persons or property of the petitioners. The same are modified only to that extent. Petitions are thus partly allowed. No costs. ( B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) rlj/