Radhakrishnan, J.

WP (C). 39412 of 2003 was preferred for enforcing the order dated 23-8-2003 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies rescinding the resolution dt. 18-9-2002 passed by the Board of Directors of a Society reinstating the petitioner. Second respondent had submitted before the learned single Judge that the order of Registrar has been appealed against before the government. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 31-3-2004 by issuing the following directions:

“The second respondent will produce a copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government Co-operative Department along with a copy of the writ petition within a period of one month from today. In case there is no interim order as of now against the implementation of Ext.P2, the second respondent will implement Ext.P2 by reinstating the petitioner subject to the result of the appeal.”

Second respondent Co-operative Society aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge filed WA. 880 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 18-5-2004 stating as follows:

“Since the question of stay was not examined by the learned single Judge and the direction was issued subject to the condition that there was no stay order operating infavour of the appellant, we are clearly of the view that it is open to the later to approach the appellate authority and ask for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Registrar rescinding the resolution terminating the services of the first respondent. We therefore, dispose of this appeal with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the prayer for stay made by the appellant in accordance with law after hearing the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge.”

Stay petition was later heard by the Government and was rejected by order dated 24-8-04. Since the direction of the learned single Judge was not implemented respondent herein filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.1542 of 2004. Contention was raised before the learned single Judge that in view of the judgment in WA. 880 of 2004 the direction given by the learned single Judge is no more survives and the same has merged in the judgment of the Division Bench. Contention was also raised before the learned single Judge in the contempt case that reinstatement was not effected due to lack of clarity in the direction given by the learned single Judge. Under such circumstance the learned single Judge passed an order in the contempt case on 1-3-2005 stating as follows:

“However, in view of the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the affidavit that the reinstatement is not made due to lack of clarity regarding the direction, pending further orders in the matter, it is only in the interests of justice and for securing the ends of justice that a positive direction is issued. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the writ petitioner, who is also the petitioner herein, in service. The order reinstating the petitioner shall be passed within two days from today and the same shall be produced before this court on 4-3-2005.”

This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the direction of the learned Judge. We heard counsel for the appellant Sri. V. Philip Mathew and the counsel appearing for respondents Sri. John Joseph, Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that learned single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a positive direction to reinstate the first respondent. Further, counsel also submitted before issuing positive direction, second respondent was not heard and no notice was issued to him calling for his explanation. Counsel also submitted, learned single Judge was not justified in reaching a conclusion that the court was misled by the Society.

2. Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri. John Joseph submitted that there is deliberate defiance of the orders passed by this court. Counsel submitted, first order was as early as 31-3-2004 and thou