Ahmednagar Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. . vs State of Maharashtra and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Bom) 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
V.K. Barde J.A. Patil, JJ.
The Ahmednagar Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd...... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1999, decided on 21-4-1999.
Advocates appeared :
R.P. Mantri, for the petitioner.
V.D. Sapkal, A.P.P., for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
R.N. Dhore, for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

Headnote:Section 2 (c)-Contempt of Court-Joint Registrar,. Co-op. Societies by directing Bank to seek clarification of stay order passed by High Court in Writ Petition, not committed criminal contempt under Section 2 (e) of Act.
       Section 15 (1)(b)-Contempt petition-In absence of prayer for Suo
       motu action against respondents in regular criminal application filed by petitioner, petition not maintainable.
       Section 23(2)-Suo motu action by Court in Contempt of Court Stay of order by High Court-Direction by Registrar for Admission of Member in Society-Contention direction made prior to stay order Term of petition not maintainable knowledge of fault -Suo motu action by High Court not proper.
       Section 23(2)-Admission member-Disobedience of order of stay by High Court-Order not disobeyed-Admission of member prior the order of High Court-Filing of petition in the form not tenable.-It is nowhere prayed in the petition, that Suo motu action be taken against the respondents for criminal contempt. The present petition can be treated as material supplied to the High Court for taking Suo motu action. It is a petition under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No previous consent of the Advocate General was obtained. Therefore, petition in the present from is not maintainable.
       The Court has ample powers, both, under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to take Suo motu action against the contemners and Suo motu action be taken against the respondents. However, Court does not think that the petitioner now can change its stand and seek for Suo motu action when the petitioner comes to know that the petition, as it is, is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT- V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner, Ahmednagar Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Bank"), has filed this contempt petition alleging that the respondent No. 4, Mr. D.S. Naik, acting as District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Registrar"), passed the orders dated 4-9-1998, 26-10-1998, 24-11-1998, 19-1-1999 and 17-2-1999, and the respondent No. 5, acting as Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik, passed order dated 21-12-1998 and thereby committed criminal contempt of this Court because the said orders were passed in contravention to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that they be punished for Criminal Contempt.

2.Before going to the merits of the case, it will be proper to give the background. Mr. Sidheshwar Gangadhar Dharmadhikari made on application to the Bank on 16-1-1981, that he be made member of the Bank. Till 1998, no decision was taken by the Bank on this application of Mr. Dharmadhikari. Therefore, he filed a petition under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The application was allowed on 30-9-1988 by the Deputy Registrar who directed the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member.

3.The Bank then presented Revision Application No. 186/88 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Joint Registrar"). On 19-11-1990, the revision was dismissed. The Bank, thereafter filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble Minister of State, Co-operative Societies, against the orders passed by the two authorities. In the said revision petition, the Hon'ble Minister, by his order dated 19-1-1991, granted interim stay to the orders passed by the said two authorities.

4.Mr. Dharmadhikari then filed Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 in this Court and the learned Single Judge passed interim stay order on 10-11-1997 and the said stay order was confirmed subsequently by the order dated 24-6-1998.

5.It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of such stay order issued by this Court, the respondent No. 4 first issued the notice dated 4-9-1998 calling upon the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank, within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, and further informed that otherwise action would be taken against the Bank, as per provisions of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

6.The petitioner replied the said notice on 8-9-1998 and brought it to the notice of the respondent No. 4, that because of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, Mr. Dharmadhikari cannot be made member of the Bank and, therefore, no further action be taken against the Bank. Copy of the order passed by the Court was also enclosed with the reply.

7.The respondent No. 4 then passed the order dated 26-10-1998 directing the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank with effect from 30-9-1998 and also directed to comply with the said order within 15 days and to report. The Bank then again informed the respondent No. 4, by its letter dated 3-11-1998, that the order passed by the respondent No. 4 on 26-10-1998 could not be implemented because of the stay order in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 passed by the High Court and requested that the order dated 26-10-1998 be withdrawn.

8.The respondent No. 4 by letter dated 27-11-1998 informed the Bank that the order dated 26-10-1998 cannot be withdrawn and further informed that a penal action would be taken against the Bank, if the orders were not complied with.

9.The Bank thereafter filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar, being Revision Application No. NGR/R/6/98 and challenged the order dated 26-10-1998.

10.The respondent No. 4 then on 19-1-1999 passed the order that the Bank had i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Bom) 312

Cases Referred (1)