1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 25th of February 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon, (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Consumer Forum') holding that the respondent No. 1 is the consumer in view of provisions of Section 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is deficiency in rendering service by the petitioner No. 10 Kala Hanuman Urban Credit Society, of which the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 are the directors. The District Consumer Forum has directed return of the amount kept by the respondent No. 1 Consumer in fixed deposit with respondent No. 10, along with interest and compensation.

2. Notice in this matter was issued on 15th of September 2009 and the order passed by the Consumer Forum was stayed. In response to the notice, Shri. Shaikh Nasir, the learned counsel appears for respondent No. 1 Consumer. Though the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were served, no one appears for them. They are the former directors of the petitioner No. 10 Society. In view of this, it is not necessary for this Court to issue fresh notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and the petitioners have made it clear in this petition that no grievance is made against those respondents. Hence, the issuance of notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are dispensed with. The learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that the matter can be heard finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard by consent of parties.

3. The question involved in this case is, whether the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is expressly barred under the provisions of Section 91 (3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in respect of dispute as contemplated by Subsection (1) of Section 91 of the said Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum is expressly barred by the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Sub-Section (3) of Section 91, which is relevant for deciding the controversy involved in this case, is reproduced below along with the explanation :

"(3) Save as otherwise provided under subsection (2) to Section 93, no Court shall have

jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in subsection (1).

Explanation 1-.A dispute between the Liquidator of a society (or an official Assignee of a deregistered society and the members including past members, or nominees, heirs or legal representative or deceased members of the same society shall not referred to the cooperative Court under the provisions of subsection (1).

Explaination 2-. For the purpose of this subsection, a dispute shall include

(i) a claim by or against a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or due from it to a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, or servant for employee whether such a debt or demand be admitted or not;

(ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a society and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not;

(iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased officer, by any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or by its committee, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not;

(iv) a refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, to deliver possession to a society of land or any other asset resumed by it for breach of condition as the assignment."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the complaint filed by the r