Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member It is submitted on behalf of applicant/appellant who is Liquidator, appointed over Shriram Sahakari Bank Ltd. that he wants to challenge the order dated 18/02/2011 passed in Execution Application No.45/2007 by District Forum, Nashik. It was an execution proceeding under Section 25(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for brevity) to get executed the order dated 06/08/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.68/2005 (Smt.Dayagauri Kalyanji Badiani & Anr. V/s. Shriram Sahakari Bank Ltd.) passed by District Forum, Nashik. The District Forum as per the impugned order dated 18/02/2011 was pleased to issue certificate to the Collector under Section 25(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed. Since there is delay of 344 days in filing appeal, an application for condonation of delay is also made. 2. We heard Mr.P.R. Adkine, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.M.S. Ambade, Advocate for non-applicants/respondents. 3. Delay condonation application is vehemently opposed by the non-applicant/respondent. 4. In the instant case, main stress given by Learned Counsel for the applicant on the fact that Bank is under liquidation. They cannot flout the directions given under the Banking Regulation Act by the Reserve Bank of India to it. Provisions of Section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act were not followed and no permission to continue with the legal proceedings was obtained and therefore, the order passed in consumer complaint dated 06/08/2007 itself not executable. We are afraid. The order datedHea 06/08/2007 passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint cannot be challenged in the execution proceedings. For that purpose, different remedy ought to have been followed by the applicant/appellant. It may not be out of place to mention here that appeal filed challenging the original order dated 06/08/2007 also stood dismissed and thus, in view of Section 24 of the Act, it reached the finality. 5. Another grievance made, as per submissions made before us by Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant, is about action taken by the Collector vis-à-vis Tahasildar for attachment of the property consequent to the certificate issued under Section 25(3) of the Act. Said action or order cannot be a subject matter of appeal before the Commission. Once, the certificate is issued, the District Forum vis-à-vis Commission becomes functus officio and as far as subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Authority to recover the amount is concerned, cannot be challenged before the Consumer Fora. Considering all these aspects, the appeal itself perhaps cannot be entertained. 6. Coming to the aspect of delay, as earlier pointed out, since the appeal itself is not maintainable; to consider any ground for condonation of delay is uncalled for. Apart from that what has been tried to be explained for this enormous delay is about action taken by the Liquidator making some request to the Collector not to proceed with the recovery of the amount as per the certificate issued and moving to other authority in that connection. That itself cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. There is no satisfactory explanation offered to condone the delay. 7. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. In the result, appeal is not entertained and stands disposed off accordingly. 3. In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Pronounced Dated 16th July 2012. | 
