1 W.P.No.408/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.408 OF 2011. Sunil Laxman Patil, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Near Big Well, Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Sitaram Hari Patil, Age 65 years, Occ.Pensioner, R/o Motha Waghoda, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Dhanshri Nitin Dohale, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Savda, Tq.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Nitin Shriram Dohle, Age major, Occ.Service, R/o Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Navin Shriram Dohle, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Savda, Tq.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 5. Shriram Ambadas Dohle, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Charulata Navin Dohle, 2 W.P.No.408/11 Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon. 7. Shubhada Shriram Dohle, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon. 8. Khandesh People Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon, through Chairman, Shri Bhanudas Sakharam Bharambe, Age 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o "Snehaprabha" Ravivar Peth, Savda, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 9. Swami Samarth Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Savda, Tq.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 10. Mr.D.S.Bagal, Administrator, Swami Samarth Urban Credit Co-Op Society Ltd.,Savda Tq.Raver,Dist.. Respondents. Jalgaon. ... Mr.P.N.Kutti, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr.M.D.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken 3 W.P.No.408/11 up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned counsels. 3. The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 2.7.2009. The orders passed by the Consumer Forum in the complaints filed by the present Respondents by virtue of which the petitioner is also made liable along with the society to pay the amount deposited by the complainants with the society. Mr.Kutti, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Sau.Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sou. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari and others" reported in 2011 (2) AIR Bombay 677 and contends that the complaint as against the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum was not maintainable at all. As such the judgment is without jurisdiction. 4. Mr.M.D.Joshi, learned counsel and Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsels for the Respondents/original complainants submit that the 4 W.P.No.408/11 complaint was perfectly maintainable against the society and the petitioner was also concerned with the day-today affairs and management of the society and as such the petitioner is also liable. It was within the competence of the District Consumer Forum to pass the judgment impugned in the present petition. 5. The issue that the complaint as against Directors of such nature would not be maintainable before the District Consumer Forum is no longer res-integra in view of the dictum of this Court in a case of "Sou.Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sou. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari and others" referred supra. 6. In view of the above, the judgment of the District Consumer Forum is a judgment "Coram non-judice". In view of that the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) i.e. the impugned judgment and orders are quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner only. Rule accordingly made absolute with no 5 W.P.No.408/11 order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp408.11