The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who decided the case against the opposite party under Sec. 48 of the Act, constitutes a Court and is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The averment amounts to contempt.

Bahadur, J.

1. The opposite party in this proceeding is one Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha, who was a share-holder of the Central Co-operative Bank, Sitamarhi (formerly known as Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Union), who has been asked to show cause as to why he should not he proceeded with contempt of Court. The present proceeding was started on an application being filed by the Sitainarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter called the Bank).

2. The said Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Union (hereinafter called the Union) was engaged in carrying on business, amongst others, in salt, sugar and kerosene oil, which was conducted by a Board of Directors. The opposite party was selected as the Chairman and it is said that the entire affairs of the said Union were controlled by him. It is further said that the opposite party entrusted one Suraj Banshi Chaudhary with the work of supplying of coal for which purpose he was given an advance of Rs. 7,004/5/-, that of this amount a sum of Rs. 5,014/5/0 could not be realised from Suraj Banshi Choudhary in whom, it was alleged, the opposite party was interested.

3. Thereafter a surcharge proceeding under Sec. 40 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Act No. VI of 1035)--hereinafter called the Act--was taken up before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies on the 22nd December 1953, and a suit) of Rs. 14,288/13/9 was held to be realisable from the opposite party and another person. The opposite party went in appeal to the State Government and by an order, dated the 28th March, 1957, the amount was reduced to Rs. 5,014/5/9. It appears that the Union was not made a party in the appeal before the State Government, It further appears that thereafter the Bank raised a dispute under Sec. 48 of the Act that the opposite party was liable for the whole of the original amount, namely, Rs. 14,288/13/9 on the ground that the State Governments order was ex parte and the Bank had no notice and was not made a party in the appeal and was, therefore, not bound by the said order. This dispute went to the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies exercising the powers of the Registrar under Sec. 48 of the Act. The Assistant Registrar decided the matter on the 15th May, 1964, upholding the contention of the Bank and making the opposite party liable for the original amount of Rs. 14,288/13/9. It appears that in the meantime the opposite party challenged his liability for the remaining amount of Rs. 5,014/5/9, as determined in appeal by the State Government by a writ application in this Court, which was dismissed. He then filed a title suit before the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, who decreed it in his favour and the appeal by the Bank is said to be pending before the District Judge of Muzaffarpur.

4. The opposite party preferred an appeal to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Registrar, dated the 15th May, 1964, which was numbered as Appeal No. 34 of 1964. In this appeal the Assistant Registrar was made respondent No. 2. In the petition of appeal, which is marked as Annexure B in the petition of the present proceeding, a ground was taken, which is No. 4(k). The said ground with the prayer is reproduced below:

"For that the order of the respondent No. 2 is mala fide inasmuch as after receiving the order of transfer he singled out this case out of so many for disposal before making over charge and used double standard in judging the charges against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

It is prayed that it should be declared that order of A. R. is without jurisdiction, illegal and mala fide and heavy cost should be awarded making respondent No. 2 responsible mainly for such cost."

5. The petitioner Bank filed an application in this Court on the 14th August, 1964, for starting a contempt of Court proceeding against the opposite party. According to the petitioner, the expression used in ground No. 4(k) amounts to gross