JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23/02/2010 in Special Civil Application No.4260 of 2009 and Special Civil Application No.6978 of 2009, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.4260 of 2009, the liquidator of the Visnagar Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited (under liquidation) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal No.1300 of 2010. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA NO.4260 OF 2009, the original petitioner-Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (herein after referred to as DICGC) has preferred the LPA No.906 of 2010. Similarly, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.4260 of 2009, the liquidator of Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd., and the liquidator of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd., and the liquidators of the Anand Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) and the liquidator of the Petlad Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) have preferred the respective LPA No.1306 of 2010; LPA No.1307 of 2010; LPA No. 238 of 2013 and LPA No.239 of 2013. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.6978 of 2009, the respective liquidators of Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd., (in liquidation), the liquidator of General Cooperative Bank Ltd., (in liquidation), the liquidator of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) as well as original petitioner–DICGC have preferred the respective LPA Nos.1305 of 2010, LPA No.1755 of 2010, LPA No.1304 of 2010 and LPA No.1399 of 2010. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.7617 of 2009, DICGC as well as the Ahmedabad Mahila Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited have preferred the Letters Patent Appeal No.228 of 2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No.2458 of 2009 respectively. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under 3.1. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under 3.1. That the original petitioner-Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (herein after referred to as DICGC), a statutory Corporation governed by the provisions of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as Act 1961) preferred the aforesaid two Special Civil Applications before this Court against the liquidator of one Visnagar Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited and the liquidator of General Cooperative Bank Limited mainly for the declaration that the Corporation–DICGC should be repaid the amount paid by them to the depositors, paid under the Act 1961. According to the Corporation, they are required to be repaid the aforesaid amount after making provisions for expenses and before making other payment to the depositors, creditors or employees. It appears that both the aforesaid Banks were insured Cooperative Banks governed by the provisions of Section 115A of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and both the banks were ordered to be liquidated under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and the respective liquidators were holding the charge of affairs of both the banks. 3.2. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner–DICGC made the payment of Rs.1 Lac to each of the depositors of the aforesaid banks as per the DICGC Act. Therefore, according to the original petitioners, before making any payment to the depositors/creditors or employees, after realizing the amount by the concerned liquidators, the original petitioner–Corporation–DICGC was required to be repaid first after making provisions for expenses. However, the liquidators of the aforesaid banks, in exercise of the power under Sections 107 to 115 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act fixed up the priority by the respective impugned decisions (impugned in the main SCA) and in the said decision the liquidator had put up the claim of the original petitioner–Corporation– DICGC in the category of creditor after secured creditor and the government dues as well as the claim of the workers which gave rise to the aforesaid SCAs by the DICGC. That by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has though as such quashed and set aside the decision of the liquidator of fixation of the priority, the learned Single Judge has directed the concerned liquidators to decide the question of priority in light of the observations made in the common impugned judgment and order. 3.3. That by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has though as such quashed and set aside the decision of the liquidator of fixation of the priority, the learned Single Judge has directed the concerned liquidators to decide the question of priority in light of the observations made in the common impugned judgment and order. 3.3. It is required to be noted that as such by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has negatived the claim on behalf of the original petitioner –DICGC that they are required to be repaid first, the amount which is paid by them to the concerned respective depositors, paid under the Regulations 1961, after making provisions for expenses and before making any other payment to the depositors and creditors of the concerned Banks (in liquidation). Therefore, DICG-Coriginal petitioners have preferred the aforesaid LPAs. 3.4. As observed herein above, even the concerned liquidators of the concerned Banks (in liquidation) are also aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as determining/fixing the priorities, which have given rise to the aforesaid LPAs. 3.5. Some other banks (in liquidation) though were not party to the aforesaid SCAs, have preferred the respective LPAs, with leave of the Court as the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is likely to affect them also. 3.6. All the depositors, in one of the Bank (in liquidation) was holding a decree in their favour, preferred SCA No.7617 of 2009 and in the said petition, the stand/claim of DICGC was also the similar and the learned Single Judge negatived the same which has given rise to LPA No.229 of 2010 and the Bank (in liquidation) with whom Shri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust deposited the amount, has also preferred LPA No.2458 of 2009 through its liquidators, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.7617 of 2009. 3.7. Therefore, as such the short question which has posed for the consideration of this Court is whether the DICGC is required to be repaid first, the amount which they have paid to the respective concerned depositors, after making provisions for expenses and before any amount is paid to the concerned depositors and/or creditors of the Bank in liquidation and/or concerned workman and for government dues. 4. 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length: 4.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while disposing of the aforesaid SCAs and directing the concerned liquidators to disburse the amount by determining the priorities of various classes of creditors separately or classify various debts separately, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph Nos.8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 as under: “8. It can hardly be accepted that the liquidation proceedings of any society would be altogether different than that of any insolvency proceedings either under Provisional Insolvency Court Act or Presidential Insolvency Court Act or the Winding Up of any Company. The laws prevailing in the matter of insolvency proceedings or in the matter of winding up proceedings would be required to be taken into consideration by the Liquidator while classifying the creditors and tracing the debts of such creditors. It is only thereafter the priority is to be fixed by the Liquidator. Even at the time of fixing the priority the laws relating to the insolvency proceedings and winding up proceedings are required to be taken into consideration by the Liquidator but it is only when there are valid reasons for making departure therefrom or there is any express statutory provisions may be by way of State Act or Central Act, the departure therefrom may be permissible. Otherwise in normal circumstances, it would be expected for the Liquidator to go by the priority as may be available to different classes of creditors for their different debts in the insolvency proceedings or winding up proceedings. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the Liquidator of each Society or each Bank has power to decide the priority of various classes of creditors separately or classify various debts separately for satisfying the claims against the Society. If such power is read, it will not only create an anomalous and ambiguous situation, but it will leave room for arbitrary exercise of power in liquidation proceedings of each Society by the Liquidator. Therefore, it will have to be held that the Liquidator of the Society having same nature for exercise of power as Liquidator in the same category of the Society, would be required to exercise the power for fixation of the priority, keeping in view the laws prevailing in any insolvency proceedings or the proceedings relating to winding up of the company. It cannot be said that the claims of any creditor as prevailing under the common law or under any other law is to be ignored and the Liquidator enjoys the power to surpass or nullify the same. The Liquidator while exercising the power for priority has to be guided and governed by the rights as may be available of the creditor against the Society for enforcement or recovery of such debts. However, in a case where the statute or by any Act express priority is provided, it will be required for the Liquidator to respect the same and to abide by the same. But in absence of any express priority by any statute, for various classes of creditors, the Liquidator will be required to fix the priority, keeping in view the laws relating to insolvency proceedings and the laws relating to winding up of a company. Of course, the same as observed earlier, is subject to a very strong reasons for making departure therefrom in any individual case, provided there is a support of express provision of any State Act or Central Act made for such purpose. 9. The aforesaid takes me to examine the second aspect about the identification of various classes of the creditors, including their respective debts. The debts can broadly be classified into secured debts and unsecured debts. In the same manner the creditors can be classified broadly into two categories; secured creditors and unsecured creditors. It is within those two classes there may be the crown debt as the secured or the crown debt as unsecured creditor. If by express provisions of statute the charge is created over the property for any revenue or taxes or other Government dues, it can be termed as crown debt as secured creditor and amongst secured creditors, the crown debt having secured by way of express charge provided by any statute will have priority over other (other than crown) secured creditors. Same position will prevail for two categories within the classes of unsecured creditors namely; the debts of crown as unsecured creditor and the other debts (other than that of the crown) as unsecured creditors. The crown debt as unsecured creditors will have priority over other unsecured creditors. Same position will prevail for two categories within the classes of unsecured creditors namely; the debts of crown as unsecured creditor and the other debts (other than that of the crown) as unsecured creditors. The crown debt as unsecured creditors will have priority over other unsecured creditors. It may also be recorded that the claim of any of the secured creditors will be to the extent of security so available and to the extent of security interest created therein and once the security is exhausted or the interest is satisfied, the remaining part of the debt would be classifiable as unsecured debt. The Liquidator, therefore, while exercising the power of fixation of priority will be required to take into consideration the aforesaid various classes of creditors and the assets of the society or the bank will be required to be distributed accordingly either in full or rateable as per the category of such debt and to the extent available therefrom. *** 11. The aforesaid would show that in the insolvency proceedings or in the proceedings of winding up of a company, the normal priority has to be as under: (1) Secured debts of the crown or the State may be by way of a security created as per Transfer of Properties Act or may be by way of express charge created by any statutory provisions to such Government dues, subject to the conditions of the quantum of such debt or to the extent of such security available, whichever is less. (2) Secured debt of any private person or any other Institution, subject to conditions of the quantum of such debt or to the extent of such security available, whichever is less. (3) Workers/employees dues. (4) The aforesaid two categories of secured debts may be considered on pari passu basis with the workers/employees dues. (5) Crown/State dues (unsecured) (6) Unsecured debt of other private person. 12. The aforesaid may be the position in liquidation proceedings of a Cooperative Society. However, so far as Cooperative Banks and more particularly insured Banks are concerned, the claim of depositors may stand in priority above other unsecured debts, but next to unsecured Government/Crown debts. The aforesaid appears to be reasonable to be incorporated, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as BR Act). However, so far as Cooperative Banks and more particularly insured Banks are concerned, the claim of depositors may stand in priority above other unsecured debts, but next to unsecured Government/Crown debts. The aforesaid appears to be reasonable to be incorporated, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as BR Act). It is true that Section 43A of the Act applies to the Banking company and by virtue of Section 56 of BR Act only certain provisions of BR Act applies to Cooperative Banks for its functioning. However, if for other banks, which includes other banking companies, the Parliament by legislative provisions has given priority to the deposits, after payment of preferential creditors under Section 530 of the Companies Act, which is equivalent to unsecured Government debts, there is no reason for not to apply such priority to the depositors while getting back the money from such cooperative banks, when the payment is to be made to unsecured creditors. Therefore, the claim of depositors may stand in priority over other unsecured debts of private persons. The last would be the distribution of share money amongst the shareholders of the Society. 13. The aforesaid can be a broad parameters for the Liquidator to decide the priority generally for cooperative societies and specifically for cooperative banks, which are also otherwise governed by the provisions of BR Act as per the observations made hereinabove.” 4.2. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has also negatived the claim/contention on behalf of the DICGC that after making provisions for expenses payable by that time, the liquidator has to discharge the liability to declare the dividend to each of the depositors and therefore the payment will be required to be made immediately after making provisions for expenses to the respondent–Corporation. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has also negatived/rejected the claim of DICGC that the claim of the Corporation should be treated as in priority i.e. next to the secured creditors and above unsecured creditors. 5. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has also negatived/rejected the claim of DICGC that the claim of the Corporation should be treated as in priority i.e. next to the secured creditors and above unsecured creditors. 5. Shri S N Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of DICGC has submitted that now the controversy in the present group of appeals i.e. with respect to claim of DICGC above the depositors, creditors and workman and the contention on behalf of DICGC that they are required to be repaid first, the amount which is paid by them to the depositors, paid under Regulations 1961, prior to any amount paid to the concerned depositors, creditors and/or workman, however after deducting the expenses made by the liquidator is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs. Raghupathi Ragavan & Ors., decided on 01/07/2015 in Civil Appeal No.1035 of 2008 and other allied Civil Appeals. It is submitted that on interpretation of the Regulations 1961, more particularly, in Regulations 22 it has been observed and held that the official liquidator, after making necessary provision for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend, as prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation. It is submitted that by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by which the learned Single Judge directed the Special Officer to pay the amount deposited by the depositors with accrued interest thereon and negatived/rejected the claim of the DICGC that they are required to be repaid the amount which they have paid to the depositors under the Regulations, 1961 first and prior to any amount is paid to the depositors/creditors. It is submitted that therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respective appeals preferred by the DICGC, deserves to be allowed and the other appeals deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties (other than DICGC) are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid and as such are not disputing the same. 6.1. 6. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties (other than DICGC) are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid and as such are not disputing the same. 6.1. Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of one of the depositors Shri Ambaji Mata Devsthan Trust has fairly conceded that even if the such depositor is having a decree/award in their favour with respect to the amount deposited by them by way of Fixed Deposit and/or in the Bank Account, can still be considered as unsecured creditor. Therefore, even if the said depositor–original petitioner of SCA No.6978 of 2009 is permitted to proceed further with the execution petition, in that case also in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to herein above, DICGC will have to be repaid first, the amount paid by them to the concerned depositors paid under Regulations 1961, before any payment is made to the depositors, creditors (secured and unsecured) and even the workmen and government dues. 7. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and as observed herein above, the main issue in the present LPAs, is with respect to the priority claimed by the DICGC over the depositors, creditors (secured and unsecured creditors), workmen and government dues, with respect to the amount paid by them to the concerned depositors paid under Regulations 1961, however except the amount of expenses incurred by the liquidator. 7.1. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has negatived the same and has rejected the priority claimed by the DICGC, claimed over the depositors, creditors (secured and unsecured) and even workmen, however in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghupathi Ragavan & Ors., (supra), the aforesaid main issue involved in the present appeals is now not res integra. While considering the relevant provisions of Regulations, 1961, in paragraph Nos.18 to 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and has held as under: “18. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking at the facts of the case, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. We note the fact that Writ Petition Nos.6768 of 2005 and 7372 of 2005 had been finally disposed of at an admission stage. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking at the facts of the case, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. We note the fact that Writ Petition Nos.6768 of 2005 and 7372 of 2005 had been finally disposed of at an admission stage. In the said petitions, the present appellant Corporation was not made a party, though it was stated before the learned Single Judge that according to the statutory provisions of the Act, the Official Liquidator had to make payment to the Corporation. In view of the said submission, in our opinion, it would have been better if the Corporation had been impleaded as one of the respondents. In that event, the stand of the Corporation and the provisions of the Act could have been known in detail by the learned Single Judge. 19. Be that as it may, now we are concerned with a direction given by the High Court to the Official Liquidator and the Special Officer of the Bank, which is in liquidation, whereby they have been directed to pay the unpaid amount to the depositors instead of paying the same to the Corporation. 20. The object with which the Act has been enacted has been stated hereinabove in a nutshell. The object was to insure the depositors so that they may not have to stand in a queue before the Official Liquidator for every paisa deposited by them with the concerned bank. As on today, as per the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is being insured or guaranteed in respect of each depositor. So a depositor is safe and he has not to wash his hands off his deposit if the amount deposited by him is less than Rs.1 lakh. The Official Liquidator, as per the provisions of the Act, has to give details about the depositors and the amount deposited by them in a prescribed form within three months from the date on which the liquidation order is passed or from the day on which he takes charge, whichever is later and within two months from the date on which the details are submitted to the Corporation, the Corporation has to make payment to the above extent either to the depositors directly or to them through the Official Liquidator. 21. 21. Thus, as per the above referred Scheme, each depositor, including each original petitioner, must have received Rs.1 lakh from the Official Liquidator. Initially, upon the bank being ordered to be wound up, the original petitioners and other depositors had a right to recover Rs.1 lakh or the amount deposited, whichever was less, from the Official Liquidator and the said amount must had been paid to them when the petitions were filed. 22. According to the provisions of the Act, after payment to the above extent is made to each depositor, if any amount is available at the disposal of the Official Liquidator, which he might have recovered from the borrowers or from other sources, he has to pay the said amount to the extent to which the amount had been paid by the Corporation as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act reads as under : “21. (1) Where any amount has been paid under section 17 or section 18 or any provision therefor has been made under section 20, the Corporation shall furnish to the liquidator or to the insured bank or to the transferee bank, as the case may be, information as regards the amount so paid or provided for. (2) On receipt of the information under subsection (1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force,- (a) the liquidator shall, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount, if any payable by him in respect of any deposit such sum or sums as make up the amount paid or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit; (b) the insured bank or, as the case may be, the transferee bank, shall, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount, if any, to be paid or credited in respect of any deposit after the date of the coming into force of the scheme referred to in section 18, such sum or sums as make up the amount paid or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit.” 23. It is pertinent to note that when the Corporation had paid to the depositors as per the insurance scheme under the Act, the Corporation gets a right under the aforestated Section 21 of the Act to get money from the Official Liquidator. 24. One has to look at sub-section (2) of Section 21, which in unequivocal terms, directs the Official Liquidator to make the payment to the Corporation as it has been stated in the said subsection, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, the Official Liquidator, as per clause 2(a) of Section 21 of the Act, has to repay the amount to the Corporation. 25. The aforestated Section 21 not only makes it obligatory on the part of the Official Liquidator to repay the said amount to the Corporation, but it also clarifies that there shall not be any other preferential creditor who would be getting any amount from the Official Liquidator till the amount payable under Section 21 of the Act is paid to the Corporation. 26. In view of the aforestated clear legal position, in our opinion, the High Court was not right when it directed the Official Liquidator to determine the mode of payment by ignoring the aforestated statutory provision. 27. The Corporation was not represented before the learned Single Judge, but at least before the Division Bench, the learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator had drawn attention of the Bench to the aforestated legal provisions of the Act. Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also been referred to by the learned counsel. The said Regulation 22 reads as under : “22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under subsection (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, (a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations and other amounts in his hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time, are sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa. in the Rupee to each depositor. in the Rupee to each depositor. (b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon as the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time in respect of such realisations or other amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the date of coming into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the Act, to pay or credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than one paisa in the Rupee.” 28. The aforestated Regulation 22 also provides that the Official Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend, as prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation. 29. In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our opinion, the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied with, would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act. 30. Even if one looks at the entire issue from different point of view, one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right. If the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the amount in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh, then only the amount which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to the depositor, unless the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which can be given to all on prorata basis after providing for expenditure in the liquidation proceedings and after repaying the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1 lakh to each depositor. The High Court or any other authority has no power to direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. 31. For the aforestated reason, we are of the view that the High Court had exceeded its authority while giving a direction to the Official Liquidator, which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions and therefore, we set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench and direct the Official Liquidator and the Special Officer to act in accordance with the statutory provisions.” 8. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, DICGC challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the liquidator to make the payment of the respective depositors ignoring the claim of the DICGC and/or prior to any amount is paid to the DICGC, the order passed by the learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench, which gave rise to the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the aforesaid appeals, it is observed and held as above. 9. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is directly on the point, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Jude, taking the contrary view cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the concerned liquidator of the concerned Bank in liquidation is required to be directed to disburse the amount recovered, as per the provisions of Regulation-22 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 i.e., the concerned liquidator, after making necessary provisions for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend has to first make payment to the Corporation and only thereafter any amount in excess can be paid to the other creditors as per the priority provided under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. 9.1. 9.1. Even, the concerned depositor/s in the present case, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.7617 of 2009 (Letters Patent Appeal No.2458 of 2009), Shri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust, in whose favour there is a decree passed by the competent Court is/are concerned, they can be said to be the unsecured creditors only and, even if they are permitted to proceed further with the execution proceedings to execute their respective decree/awards in their favour, in that case also, the concerned liquidator (who can be said to be a debtor and against whom the decree/award is passed) can be permitted to make the payment and satisfaction of the decree/award only after the official liquidator makes necessary provisions for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of the dividend and thereafter makes payment to the DICGC as observed herein above and only thereafter, if any excess amount is there with the official liquidator of the concerned Bank in liquidation, the same can be directed to be paid to the concerned decree holder/in whose favour the award is passed. However, that too subject to the priority as provided under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 9.2. The sum and substance of the above shall be that the DICGC shall be entitled to the first preference over the payment/amount available with the concerned official liquidator of the concerned bank in liquidation. However, after making necessary provisions by the official liquidator, for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.4260 of 2009, Special Civil Application No.7617 of 2009 and Special Civil Application No.6978 of 2009 are hereby quashed and set aside and the Letters Patent Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent by directing the concerned official liquidator of the concerned Bank in liquidation to make the payment first to DICGC i.e. the amount which is paid by DICGC to the concerned depositor/s to the extent of Rs.1 Lac each, however after making necessary provisions for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend. Rest of the Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1305 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal No.1755 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal No.1304 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal No.1306 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal No.1307 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal No.2458 of 2009, Letters Patent Appeal No.238 of 2013 and Letters Patent Appeal No.239 of 2013 stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs, in each of the appeals.