1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matters are heard finally.

2. A common question of fact and law which calls for decision in these writ petitions under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is as to whether even a criminal proceeding against a society under winding up or under liquidation is barred. The facts which are common in both the writ petitions are to the effect that the petitioner no.1 is a cooperative society duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It had obtained the licence to carry on banking businesses under the provisions of Banking Regulations Act, 1949. In the year 2008, the Reserve Bank of India had arrived at a conclusion that there was no likelihood of any improvement in the financial condition the petitioner no. 1society. It decided to cancel the licence granted to it for conducting banking business in exercise of the powers under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act. This order of the Reserve Bank of India was passed on 29.12.2008. Pursuant to such order, the Commissioner of Cooperative and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra by the order dated 03.01.2009 ordered winding up of the activities of the petitioner no. 1. By that order even the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as a Liquidator.

3. It appears that the respondent nos. 3 to 7 in Writ Petition No. 934 of 2017 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2017 had deposited money with the petitioner Society. They filed complaints in the District Consumer Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Consumer Forum by the order dated 09.01.2015 allowed the claims and inter alia issued a direction to the petitioner no. 1 Society to refund the amounts deposited with interest. In due course even these respondents submitted an execution proceeding before the District Consumer Forum. Since the petitioners failed to pay money as awarded by the District Consumer Forum, these respondents initiated a proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act invoking the penal provision. The forum issued summons/notices and called upon the petitioners to furnish bail. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by such orders the petitioners have approached this Court. The petitioners are seeking to quash the summons and notices issued by the District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum, by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that by virtue of Section 107 of the Cooperative Societies Act, once a Cooperative Society goes under winding up and liquidation proceeding, no proceeding can be initiated except with the leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose. When admittedly the petitioner no. 1 is a Cooperative Society and when admittedly the Registrar has directed it to be wound up and it is undergoing liquidation process wherein the petitioner no. 2 is appointed as a Liquidator, in the absence of any permission under Section 107, the District Consumer Redressal Forum could not have taken cognizance of the complaint under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and ought not to have directed summons/notice is to be issued. The impugned direction is clearly in violation of such statutory bar. It was pointed out to the forum by the petitioner no. 2 when he had appeared pursuant to the impugned summons/notice and therefore it may be quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petitions.

5. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners also submitted that the very fact that the petitioner no.1 is undergoing a liquidation process on account of its poor financial condition, it is not only the present respondents but even the other depositors and creditors also have an equal right to have a share in the proc