The Officers on Special Duty appointed by the State Government under section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act.

Headnote:
Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notification dated 11th March 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act.
Fact of the Case:

Respondent No.3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 was held on November 18, 1970, under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two or the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on November 19, 1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondent No.3 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected to be the directors of the Board. On November 25, 1970 the petitioners applied to the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur, respondent No. 17, to have the said election of the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 set aside on the ground that several illegalities were committed and malpractices were indulged in during the election. The dispute so referred by the petitioners to respondent No. 17 was referred by respondent No. 17 to respondent No.2 for her decision. Respondent No.2 happens to be an Officer on Special Duty appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it under section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners prayed for an ad interim injunction restraining the Society (respondent No.3) from giving charge of the affairs of the Society to the news elected Board of Directors which comprised respondents Nos. 4 to 16 and fur there restraining the newly elected Board of Directors from taking charge from respondent No.3 and an injunction was also sought restraining respondents Nos. 4 to 16 from exercising any power or rights as elected members of the Board of Directors. On November 27, 1970 respondent No.2 passed an order granting interim injunction to the following effect: "Respondent No.3 being the Society was temporarily restrained from giving charge to the newly elected Board of Directors viz. respondents Nos. 4 to 13 and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were restrained from taking charge from respondent No.3 till the final disposal of the case." . Since respondent No. 16 was erstwhile Managing Director of respondent No.3, the first part of the injunction really operated against him, in the same that he was restrained from handing over charge of the affairs of the society to the newly elected Board of Directors. This order of injunction issued by respondent No.2 was served on respondents Nos. 3,4, 14, 15 and 16 on the very day i.e. November 27, 1970 while it was served on respondents Nos. 6, 9, 12 and 13 on November 28, 1970. It also appears that this order was published in a local newspaper, 'Pudhari Daily' of Kolhapur, on November 29, 1970. According to the petitioners, in spite of service or this injunction order on the several respondents, as mentioned above, on November 30, 1970 the first meeting of the newly elected Board of Directors of respondent No. ,3 was convened which was attended by respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 and 16 at which the charge of the affairs of the factory was taken over by the newly elected Board of Directors and at that meeting the new Chairman, Vice-Chairman and subcommittees were elected and even the resolution authorising withdrawal of funds from the Bank account was passed. The petitioners, therefore, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 1971 in this Court praying for action being taken against respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 and 16 for contempt or Court alleging that they committed several of the aforesaid acts in the meeting that was convened on November 30, 1970 in utter disregard and disobedience of the injunction order issued by respondent No.2 on November 27, 1970.
Finding of the Court:

The Officers on Special Duty appointed by the State Government under section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act.
Issues: Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notification dated 11th March 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression 'Court' has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and all that section 3 (1) of the said Act does is that it confers power upon the High Court to punish "Contempt of Courts subordinate to it" in the same manner it punishes contempt of itself and obviously the expression "Courts subordinate to High Court" in section 3 (1) would mean Courts of law subordinate to High Court in the hierarchy of Courts established for the purpose of administration of notice throughout the Union. 2. To be a Court, the person or persons who constitute it must be entrusted with judicial functions, that is, of deciding litigated questions according to law. 3. The Officers on Special Duty appointed by the State Government under section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act.
Final Decision: The question referred to us for our decision will have to be answered in the affirmative.

JUDGMENT

TULZAPURKAR J.- The question that has been referred to us for our decision by the Division Bench is as follows:

"Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notification dated 11th March 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act."

2. The question arises in these circumstances: Respondent No.3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 was held on November 18, 1970, under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two or the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on November 19, 1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondent No.3 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected to be the directors of the Board. On November 25, 1970 the petitioners applied to the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur, respondent No. 17, to have the said election of the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 set aside on the ground that several illegalities were committed and malpractices were indulged in during the election. The dispute so referred by the petitioners to respondent No. 17 was referred by respondent No. 17 to respondent No.2 for her decision. Respondent No.2 happens to be an Officer on Special Duty appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it under section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners prayed for an ad interim injunction restraining the Society (respondent No.3) from giving charge of the affairs of the Society to the news elected Board of Directors which comprised respondents Nos. 4 to 16 and fur there restraining the newly elected Board of Directors from taking charge from respondent No.3 and an injunction was also sought restraining respondents Nos. 4 to 16 from exercising any power or rights as elected members of the Board of Directors. On November 27, 1970 respondent No.2 passed an order granting interim injunction to the following effect:

"Respondent No.3 being the Society was temporarily restrained from giving charge to the newly elected Board of Directors viz. respondents Nos. 4 to 13 and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were restrained from taking charge from respondent No.3 till the final disposal of the case."

. Since respondent No. 16 was erstwhile Managing Director of respondent No.3, the first part of the injunction really operated against him, in the same that he was restrained from handing over charge of the affairs of the society to the newly elected Board of Directors. This order of injunction issued by respondent No.2 was served on respondents Nos. 3,4, 14, 15 and 16 on the very day i.e. November 27, 1970 while it was served on respondents Nos. 6, 9, 12 and 13 on November 28, 1970. It also appears that this order was published in a local newspaper, 'Pudhari Daily' of Kolhapur, on November 29, 1970. According to the petitioners, in spite of service or this injunction order on the several respondents, as mentioned above, on November 30, 1970 the first meeting of the newly elected Board of Directors of respondent No. ,3 was convened which was attended by respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 and 16 at which the charge of the affairs of the factory was taken over by the newly elected Board of Directors and at that meeting the new Chairman, Vice-Chairman and subcommittees were elected and even the resolution authorising withdrawal of funds from the Bank account was passed. The petitioners, therefore, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 1971 in this Court praying for action being taken against respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 and 16 for contempt or Court alleging that they committed several of the aforesaid acts in the meeting that was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document