D.G. KARNIK, J.:- In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners who are members of the managing committees of tile Cooperative Credit Societies, have challenged the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") to pass orders against them in the complaints filed by the depositors against cooperative credit societies on the following grounds:

(i) Firstly because such Cooperative Credit Societies do not provide any service as contemplated by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and even if such activities are treated as services being rendered, such services are not being rendered for remuneration or charge and therefore, the Cooperative Credit Societies cannot come withm the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

(ii) Secondly, it is contended that the complainants are members of the Cooperative Credit Societies and, therefore, the competent forum to entertain the complaints of members against their cooperative societies of would be the Cooperative Courts under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and not the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

(iii) Thirdly, it is contended that in any view of the matter, since the transaction was between a Cooperative Credit Society and the complainant, the members of the Managing Committees of the Cooperative Societies cannot be held to be liable in their individual capacity.

2. On the other hand, Mr. Nargolkar, learned Additional Government Pleader as well as Mr. Ingle, learned counsel appearing for some of the complainants have opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the petitioners have an equally efficaeiolls remedy available to them under the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that either the petitioners can go back to the District Consumer Redressal Forum and raise the contentions which are now sought to be raised in these writ petitions or the petitioners can go before the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

3. Though in some of the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Act and in particular the proviso to section 15, which provides that no appeal shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner 50% of the amount awarded or Rs.25,000/- whichever is less, the point was not urged before us, and in our view rightly so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Kishore and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr, (1993) 1 SCC 22. Therein, the Supreme Court was inter alia considering the validity of section 170 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which provides that no appeal against an assessment of any tax shall be heard or determined unless the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has been deposited by the appellant in the office of Corporation. The challenge to the provision on the ground that it was harsh and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was repelled by the Supreme Court holding that the appellate authority may admit the appeal and grant adjoumment in appropriate cases to enable the appellant to deposit taxes but cannot commence the hearing without predeposit of the tax. So interpreted, the provision would not be harsh and violative of Article 14. In Dinkar Rapuso Patil & ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.5881 of 2010), following the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court has repelled the challenge to the constitutional validity of the second proviso to section 15 of the Act. Consequently, the issue does not survive and was not rightly urged before us"

4. The first contention of the petitioners is that the cooperative credit societies take deposits only from the members and grant loans only to the members and in doing so, no service is provided by the Society to the depositors. In the absence of any "service" the D