V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec. 12 of C.P Act, 1986 seeking to refund the F.D. amount, towards mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. The case of the complainant is dismissed as per memo dtd: 06.02.2023 filed by complainant.

           2.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          Complainant is  resident of Gadag, working as a Teacher in Vijaya Arts College.  Complainant is member of Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Laxmeshwar and Shiva Betagari Patil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Gadag and Op No.1 & 2 are President, Op No.3 to 12 are Directors of both institution respectively.  On 20.07.2017 complainant got the  membership in Op No.1 bearing account A/c No.01000114 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/-  on 04.08.2017 the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is kept as fixed deposit with  interest 11% p.a. for period of one year from 04.08.2017 to 03.08.2018.  Op No.1 issued FD letter bearing No.01DF14 Rs.1,11,000/- .

          Similarly, the complainant  deposited Rs.4,000/- as monthly installments towards B.C. on 18.03.2016 in Op No.2 Chit fund total Rs.80,000/-  and till 18.03.2018, Rs.20,000/- dividend in all Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited in
“Shiva” Betageri Patil Chit Funds. Pvt. Ltd., and the  complainant requested the Op No.1 & 2 to refund the F.D. amount and B.C. amount.  Op No.1 told that, her husband  has died she will refund the amount and requested the time. Inspite of repeated request,  OP did not heed the request.  So, on 05.07.2019 got issued legal notice to the Ops. Op No.3,4,6,7,9, 11 & 12 gave evasive reply notice. On 29.09.2019 notice was published in Navodaya daily News Paper to Op No.1, 2 5,8 &10  and they did not reply or refund the amount. Therefore,  Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 have appeared through their counsel and filed their written version.  OP No.1, 2 & 10 have remained absent. After amendment of the complaint, Op No.9 filed addition written version and Op No.3 to 8, 11 & 12 filed memo to adopt the same additional written version filed by the Op No.9.

          4.       The brief facts of written version and additional written version filed by OP No.3 to 9, 11 & 12  are as under:

          These OPs denied the various allegations and contended that, they are neither Promoters,  Members and Directors of the Op No.1 & 2 institutions they are no way concern to the said Op No.1 & 2 they are not doing the financial transaction including the business of money lending nor were issuing the benefits of the transactions of society. It is false to state that, complainant has kept the FD of Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards B.C. amount. These Ops have not given false reply to the notice dtd:05.07.2019 and notice of OP No.5 & 8 is not at all served. Op No.5 & 8 had no knowledge about the said  notice published in Navodaya daily newspaper. These Ops are not liable to pay Rs.2,50,394/- and other expenses. Further contended that, Op No.1 to 10 are belonging to one family. Op No.1 & 2  are close relative of Op No.3 to 9 and had approached along with Hanamantgouda husband of the Op No.1 to these Ops in the year 2016 and requested that their signatures are required to show their name as Members in list for nominal sake only as they were going to establish Co-operative society, by believing their words and in good faith, had put their signature on blank papers, later informed to these respondents that Co-Operative society was not at all formed due to many difficulties.  It is learned that, Hanamantagouda Patil started institution called Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Laxmeshawar in the month of 2017 i.e. Op No.1 and he alone was conducting the administration, subsequently he died in the month of July 2018, after his death Vijayalaxmi has continued the business and after two months closed it and Vijayalaxmi along with her mother in law absconded with documents pertaining to said institution since then there whereabouts are not at all known to these Ops.  It is learnt that, officer from the office of Karnataka Rajaya Souharda Samyukata Sahakari Ltd., Belagavi by name Prabhayya Hiremath is appointed as an enquiry officer. He has issued notice on 19.03.2019 to these Ops to produce documents as a Directors, then only they came to know that, Hanumanthagouda and Vijayalaxmi have falsely shown the names of these Ops as Directors.  These Ops have not filed any nomination for electing them as Directors and they have not at all assumed the office as Directors.

          5. Without admitting and prejudice to their rights, submits that, the dispute raised touches to the business of institution and he claims to be member and carried transaction, any dispute touches the constitution, management or business and its member, such disputes can only be raised before competent authority U/Sec. 39 of KSS Act, 1997 and jurisdiction of this Commission is barred U/Sec. 42 of the said Act,  complaint is not filed the against alleged Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Laxmeshwar and is not  maintainable. The enquiry is yet to be completed for fixing the liability. In such circumstances, complaint is not maintainable.   So, there is no deficiency of service committed by these Ops.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

           6. To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-44. Op No.9 filed affidavit on 05.10.2021 and further affidavit filed on 13.10.2021. Smt. Laxmi Rayangoudra,
Smt. Shaila Suranagi, Smt. Chinnamayi Patil, Smt. Vinod Samshi, Smt. Lalita Kitageri, Smt. Umamaheshwar Kitageri, Smt. Kirti Patil, Smt. Pushapa Matti,
Smt. Kallavva Mallur and Smt. Mahadevi Doni filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 to RW-11 and got marked the document as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-17.

           7.      Heard, arguments on both sides.

           8.      The points for consideration to us are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves that, he has deposited FD of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.08.2018 in Op No.1 and deficiency of service committed by the Op No.1?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

      9.      Our findings on the above points are as under:

              Point No. 1:  In the affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  In the partly affirmative.

Point No.3: As per the final Order

            REASONS

          10.     Point No.1 :- The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-44, complainant proved that he is a consumer and deficiency of service is committed by the Ops. The learned counsel for Op No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 argued that, complainant is not a consumer has and not proved that these Ops are Directors and deficiency of service is committed by these Ops.

          11.     On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit, in-lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  PW-1 has stated that, complainant is member of Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Laxmeshwar and Shiva Betagari Patil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Gadag and Op No.1 & 2 are President, Op No.3 to 12 are Directors of both institution respectively.  On 20.07.2017 complainant got the  membership in Op No.1 bearing account A/c No.01000114 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/-  on 04.08.2017 the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is kept as fixed deposit with  interest 11% p.a. for period of one year from 04.08.2017 to 03.08.2018.  Op No.1 issued FD letter bearing No.01DF14 Rs.1,11,000/- .

          12. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version and additional written version filed by OPs. RW-1 has stated that, OPs denied the various allegations and contended that, they are neither Promoters,  Members and Directors of the Op No.1 & 2 institutions they are no way concern to the said Op No.1 & 2 they are not doing the financial transaction including the business of money lending nor were issuing the benefits of the transactions of society. It is false to state that, complainant has kept the FD of Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards B.C. amount. These Ops have not given false reply to the notice dtd:05.07.2019 and notice of OP No.5 & 8 is not at all served. Op No.5 & 8 had no knowledge about the said  notice published in Navodaya daily newspaper. These Ops are not liable to pay Rs.2,50,394/- and other expenses. Further contended that, Op No.1 to 10 are belonging to one family. Op No.1 & 2  are close relative of Op No.3 to 9 and had approached along with Hanamantgouda husband of the Op No.1 to these Ops in the year 2016 and requested that their signatures are required to show their name as Members in list for nominal sake only as they were going to establish Co-operative society, by believing their words and in good faith, had put their signature on blank papers, later informed to these respondents that Co-Operative society was not at all formed due to many difficulties.  It is learned that, Hanamantagouda Patil started institution called Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Laxmeshawar in the month of 2017 i.e. Op No.1 and he alone was conducting the administration, subsequently, he died in the month of July 2018, after his death Vijayalaxmi has continued the business and after two months closed it and Vijayalaxmi along with her mother in law absconded with documents pertaining to said institution since then there whereabouts are not at all known to these Ops.  It is learnt that, officer from the office of Karnataka Rajaya Souhada Samyukata Sahakari Ltd., Belagavi by name Prabayya Hiremath is appointed as an enquiry officer. He has issued notice on 19.03.2019 to these Ops to produce documents as a Directors, then only they came to know that, Hanamanthagouda and Vijayalaxmi have falsely shown the names of these Ops as Directors.  These Ops have not filed any nomination for electing them as a Directors and they have not at all assumed the office as a Directors.

          13. Without admitting and prejudice to their rights, submits that, the dispute raised touches to the business of institution and he claims to be member and carried transaction, any dispute touches to the constitution, management or business and its member, such disputes can only be raised before competent authority U/Sec. 39 of KSS Act, 1997 and jurisdiction of this Commission is barred U/Sec. 42 of the said Act,  complaint is not filed the against alleged Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Laxmeshwar and is not  maintainable. The enquiry is yet to be completed for fixing the liability. In such circumstances, complaint is not maintainable.   So, there is no deficiency of service committed by these Ops.

          14. RW-2 to 11 have filed their affidavit separately and they have stated that, they have not paid  share or membership amount to Op No.1 and they are not at all shareholders, they have not received notice for attending meeting or election, they have not participated  in the affairs. Op No.1 & 2 Vijayalaxmi and her husband Hanamatagouda Patil falsely included their names in the list of shareholders. Op No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 are not shareholders or Directors and they have not filed any nomination for election for Director post of Op No.1. They recently came to know through Op No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 that their names have been included in the list of shareholders of Op No.1.

          15. At the very outset, Op No.1 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Patil is a Chairman of SMSSN, and complainant  has deposited the amount to the said Society. The Op No.1 President, Op No.10 Smt. Savita Kuberagouda Patil have not appeared and filed their written version. So, the case of the complainant is remained unchallenged and undisputed by the Op No.1 & 10. So, Oral and documentary evidence of complainant against Op No.1 society is remained unchallenged by OP No.1 & 10. The main contention of remaining Directors, Op No.3 to 9 and 11 & 12 is that, they have not at all contributed share capital  amount to Op No.1 and they are not at all shareholders, they have not received notice for attending meeting or election, they have not participated  in the affairs. Op No.1 & 2 Vijayalaxmi and her husband Hanamatagouda Patil falsely included their names in the list of shareholders. Op No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 are not shareholders or Directors and they have not filed any nomination for election for Director post of Op No.1. So, such being the case, whether these Ops are Directors of Op No.1 Society or not is to be looked into  which is an important aspect. Ex.C-16 certificate of registration, Ex.C-17 order passed by Asst. registrar Co-Operative Society Gadag, Ex.C-18 election result of the Op No.1 reveal that, Op No.1 is registered on 28.03.2017, Op No.3 to 12 and others are elected body for management on 15.05.2017, Ex.C-25 is the list of shareholders reveals that,  Op No.1 Vijayalaxmi, Op No.3 to 12 and RW-2 to RW-11 and other persons are shareholders of the Op No.1, Ex.C-26 meeting held on 18.05.2017 wherein Op No.3 to 12 were present and passed the resolution for conducting of the election, Ex.C-27 to Ex.C-43 and Ex.C-44 is list of promoters, reveal that, personal information of Promoters of the Op No.1 Vijayalaxmi and Op No.3 to 12. Ex.C-28 Byelaw of Op No.1, Ex.C-29 reply issued by Registrar Co-Operative Society to the application Ex.C-30 filed by complainant regarding supply of byelaw and other documents. Ex.C-1 FD which stands in the name of complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- for one year from 04.08.2017 to 03.08.2018, wherein, OP No.1 V.H.Patil, President and Secretary have put their signatures, Ex.C-2 passbook of complainant issued by Op No.1 that, he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.08.2017, Ex.C-4 legal notice issued by complainant through advocate to the Ops, Ex.C-5 to 15 are postal receipts which are not disputed by Ops, as they got reply notice as per Ex.C-19, Ex.Op-11to Ex.OP-17 through their counsel. Ex.Op-1 notice issued by  Prabhaya Hiremath, inquiry officer to Op No.1, Op  No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 to produce  documents pertaining to Op NO.1, Ex.Op-2 to Ex.Op-10 are reply issued by Op No.3 to 9,11 & 12 to Prabhaya Hiremath stating that, they are not shareholders, Members, Directors and have not participated in the meeting and affairs of the Op No.1. The above documents clearly goes to show that, Op No.1 is a President and Op No.3 to 12 are Directors of Op No.1. Op No.3 to 9, 11 & 12 are not disputing their signatures. They are contending that, husband of the Op No.1 Hanamantagouda and Op No.1 Vijayalaxmi are their relatives and obtained their signatures on blank papers for establishment of the society and later Op No.1 told that, they have not formed the society and subsequently, they came to know, only when Ex.Op-1 notice was issued by Prabhaya Hiremath, that they are mentioned as Directors of Op No.1. As per RW-1, Op No.1 Vijayalaxmi and her husband obtained blank signatures prior to formation, Op No.1 was formed as per order dtd:28.03.2017 vide Ex.C-17, Ex.C-26 meeting of the management committee held on 18.05.2017. Wherein, Ops have attended the meeting and passed the resolution, wherein names of Directors and signature could be seen. So, Op No.3 to 12 have attended the meeting as a Directors and put their signatures. So, the contention of these Ops that they put their signatures on blank paper on the influence of Op No.1 and her husband cannot be believed and accepted. Moreover, Ex.C-27 to
Ex.C-44 are personal information of promoter, reveal that Op No.1, 3 to 12 submitted their details of personal information with Photo’s. So, it is the defence of these Ops that, Op No.1 and her husband obtained their signatures on blank papers and also obtained their passport size Photo’s is not believable.  As Op No.3 to 12 submitted their personal information as a promoter, put their signature along with their passport size Photo’s as per Ex.C-33 to 44. Accordingly, based on the above documents Prabhaya Hiremath issued notice, Ex.Op-1 to these Ops addressing them as a Director to produce the documents. Then, Ops replied and denied that, they are not Directors and are no way concerned to Op No.1 etc., as per Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-10.

16. Further, RW-2 to RW-11 filed their affidavits to support the RW-1, stating that they are not shareholders or members. In fact as per Ex.C-35 list of the shareholders, reveals that, these Ops as well as RW-2 to RW-11 are shareholders. So, oral evidence of RW-1 to RW-11 is quite contrary to the documentary evidence. It is settled law that always documentary evidence prevail over the oral evidence. So, the Ops have not produced a reliable rebuttal evidence to show that, they are not Directors.  Thus, complainant has proved that, Op No.3 to 12 are Directors, and they have participated in the election and also attended the meeting of Op No.1 and also as per byelaw Ex.C-28, they are responsible for the liabilities of OP No.1.

17. Further, complainant proved that, he is deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. Of course, Ops denied that, complainant has not deposited any amount. But, when, Ops contended that, they are not the Members or Director and no way concern to OP No.1 society. Such being the case they do not have knowledge about the transaction the complainant had with Op Society. Further, Ops contended that, dispute touches the management, business of Op No.1 and this Commission has no jurisdiction.  Complainant being a depositor is claiming the refund of his FD amount only, he is not disputing or challenging the business election of Directors, or President of the Op No.1.  The relief sought by complainant does not touches or concerned with  the business or affairs of the Op No.1. So, this contention cannot be accepted and this Commission has got jurisdiction.     Further, Ops contented that, enquiry is going on through Prabhaya Hiremath and directed to submit the report, till then complaint is not maintainable. It is true that, as per Ex.Op-1 notice dtd:19.03.2019  was issued by Prabhaya Hiremath, and enquiry was going on. Now, enquiry is still pending  or not is not proved by Ops. Merely, enquiry is pending does not bar the right of the complainant for legally recoverable FD amount. The learned counsel for Ops argued that, Ops disputed the signature and entire case of the complainant, this is a quasi-judicial proceedings and requested to direct the complainant to approach competent authority Merely, denying the signature and other allegations does not mean that this Commission has no jurisdiction. Complainant being a depositor of FD amount seeking for refund of FD amount only. So, the available evidence is to be consider for whether he is entitled the relief or not is to be important aspect.  Even if matter is serious, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case, if touches business or appears of the Co-Operative institution. In case, Commission opined that it is necessary to direct the complainant to approach proper Commission, no alternative competent authority to decide the dispute. As per provisions of Shouharda Co-Operative act,  if any miss-appreciation committed in the institution, there is a provision for conduct enquiry and take necessary action.  Moreover, as per Section 100 of the C.P. Act, the provisions of C.P. Act, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the other Law for the time being inforce.

The learned counsel for OPs relying on a decision ILR 2003 KAR 4810, in Umesh Upadhya V/s The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and another. Wherein, it is held that, what is required to be done for the purpose of registration of the ‘Sahakari’ under Section 4, is that there shall not be less than 10 individuals belonging to different families. Since, the condition No.1 is contrary to the provisions of the act, the same is liable to be quashed along with consequential endorsements.

In the said case the registrar of Co-Operative Societies imposing several conditions as stating that, registration of the petitioner will be done only after condition No.1 is fulfilled. The dispute between the parties is in respect of prior to registration of the Society. In the case on hand, there is no dispute regarding registration Op No.1 society.

Facts and circumstances of the above decision is not similar with case on hand.

Further relying on a decision II (1993) CPJ 1227, Ghanshyambhai Bahecharbhai Patel and Another V/s The NEW India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that, (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sec.14-Complicated Issue-Complaint-Involving complicated issues of law and facts-To be decided by Civil Court.

Facts and circumstances of the above decision is not similar with case on hand, as in the above case the deceased was unsound mind un-insurable, no gainful income, not died of accident and various questions were involved.

Further relying on a decision  2021 (2) CPR 58 (NC), in M/s L.M. Jewelers V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another. Wherein, it is held that “A consumer complaint can be returned for presentation before Civil Court if the case requires recording of extensive oral evidence and provided of extensive documentary evidence”.

Facts and circumstances of the above decision is not similar with case on hand, as complainant seeking refund of FD amount only and case not requires recording of extensive oral and documentary evidence.

18. Such being the case, this Commission has got jurisdiction. Thus, complainant proved that, Op No.1, 3 to 12 have committed the deficiency of service in respect of Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Laxmeshwar, Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

 19. For the reasons stated in the point No.1, the complainant has proved that, he is entitled for FD amount of Rs.1,11,000/-. Complainant is claiming interest at the rate of 21% p.a. Even, the complainant agreed for FD amount at 11%. Interest and now he is claiming an exorbitant interest of 21%, which is on higher side. So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank, it is proper to award interest @ 11% p.a. as per agreed rate mentioned in Ex.C-1 FD receipt from the date of maturity dtd:03.08.2018 till realization. Complainant has attended the court since 2020 and suffered mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, we answer point No.2 in the partly affirmative.     

          20.    POINT No. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is partly allowed against Op No.1, 3 to 12 in respect of Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Laxmeshwar and complaint against No.2 to 12 in respect of Shiva Betageri Patil Chit Funds Ltd., is dismissed.

Complainant is entitled from OP No.1, 3 to 12a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- with interest at 11% p.a. since 03.08.2018 till realization.

Further, the complainant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1, 3 to 12 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this  15^th   day of February-2023)

,            

(Shri Raju N. Metri)      (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)    (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT                WOMAN MEMBER

                                                    ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 : Vijayakumar S/o Lingappa Belagali

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

Ex.C-1: Fixed Deposit receipt.

Ex.C-2 & 3: Passbooks.

Ex.C-4: Legal notice.

Ex.C-5 to 15:Postal receipts.

Ex.C-16: Copy of registeration certificate

Ex.C-17: Copy of order passed by Asst. registrar Co-Operative Society Gadag

Ex.C-18: Copy of election result.

Ex.C-19 & 20: Reply notice.

Ex.C-21 to 24: Postal covers

Ex.C-25: Shiva Pattin Mahila Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Laxmeshwar

              Shareholders list and amount details.

Ex.C-26: Copy of meeting  dtd:18.05.2017.

Ex.C-27: Copy of personal information of Promoter.

Ex.C-28: Copy of Byelaw.

Ex.C-29 : Reply issued by Registrar Co-Operative Society to the application.

Ex.C-30: Complainant letter issued to Registrar Co-Operative Society,  

               Gadag.

Ex.C-31:Paper publication.

Ex.C-32 to 44: Copies of personal information of Promoters.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Smt. Shankaravva W/o Ningangouda Patil,

RW-2: Smt. Laxmi W/o Siddramgouda Rayangoudra

RW-3: Smt. Shaila W/o Ningangouda Suranagi

RW-4: Smt. Chinami W/o Shekhargouda Patil

RW-5: Smt. Vinod W/o Ishawar Samshi

RW-6: Smt. Lalita W/o Chanabasappa Kitageri

RW-7: Smt. Umamaheshwari W/o Siddanna Kitageri

RW-8: Smt. Kirti W/o Shanmukhagouda Patil

RW-9: Smt. Pushapa W/o Channappa Matti,

RW-10: Smt. Kallavva W/o Basanagouda Mallur,

RW-11: Smt. Mahadevi W/o Gurunathgouda Doni,

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:  Notice issued by Prabhayya Hiremath, enquiry officer.

Ex.Op-2 : Copy of reply given by Respondent No.3 to notice of enquiry

                officer.

Ex.Op-3:  Copy of reply given by Respondent No.4 to notice of enquiry

                officer.

Ex.Op-4 : Copy of reply given by Respondent No.5 to notice of enquiry

                officer.

Ex.Op-5 : Copy of reply given by Respondent No.6 to notice of enquiry

                Officer.

Ex.OP-6 : Copy of reply given by Respondent No.7 to notice of enquiry

                Officer.

Ex.Op-7: Copy of reply given by Respondent No.8 to notice of enquiry

                Officer.

Ex.OP-8: Copy of reply given by Respondent No.9 to notice of enquiry

               Officer.

Ex.Op-9: Copy of reply given by Respondent No.11 to notice of enquiry

               Officer.

Ex.OP-10: Copy of reply given by Respondent No.12 to notice of enquiry

                 Officer.

Ex.OP-11 to 17: Reply notices.

        (Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER