TARE, C. J.: -This is a petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for taking action against the respondent for contempt of Court on the ground that during the pendency of writ petition, that is. Champa v. Assistant Registrar, M. P. No. 593 of 1971, decided on 21-12-1974 (MP) the respondent purported to supercede the Co-operative Society under Section 53 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

2. The elections to the Co-operative Society were to be held and that action of the Election Officer was challenged by one Champa in Misc. Petition No. 593 of 1971. In that case, a stay also had been granted, restraining the Election Officer from holding the Election. That petition, we have dismissed on 21-12-1974 on the ground that it has been rendered infructuous due to lapse of time. It was during the pendency of the said writ petition that the respondent Shri R. P. Nayak, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, passed the order impugned, superseding the Co-operative Society, which is now subject-matter of a challenge in a writ petition, registered as Misc. Petition No. 1103 of 1974. That writ petition was admitted recently and it is pending for hearing after notices to the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent, by passing the order of supersession of the Co-operative Society during the pendency of the writ petition, that is. Misc. Petition No. 593 of 1971, has committed a civil contempt of this Court inasmuch as the Election Officer had been restrained from holding the elections and for no fault of the members of the Society, the Co-operative Society has been superseded by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

4. In this connection, we might observe that if the authority has the statutory power to act in a particular manner, the question of mala fides or bona fides will not arise and the authority can certainly exercise that statutory power as and when it thinks it proper. That power cannot be denied to the authority merely because of the pendency of a case in a Court of law. Of course, that statutory power cannot be exercised which would be in direct contradiction to the subject-matter of the lis pending in a Court of law. But other action no affecting that

case, can certainly be taken if the statute empowers the authority do so.

5. This question, we had elaborately considered in Malik Singh v. K. D. Saxena, M. Cr. C. No. 125 of 1974 decided on 11-12-1974. In that case, we had relied on a Division Bench decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court namely Narayan Singh v. Satya Narain Dube, (1953) 2 MBLJ 164, wherein the learned Judges held that although a case may be pending before a Court, yet the doing of another lawful act, such as conducting of a departmental enquiry cannot be regarded as amounting to contempt of Court.

6. The said question was also considered by us In re, Mehra Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, M. Cr. O. No. 177 of 1959 : (1960 MPLJ Notes 162). In that case, following the view of the Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court, a Division Bench of this Court, had held that the scope of the departmental enquiry being altogether different from the matter involved in the criminal prosecution, the Superintendent of Post Offices could not be held guilty of a contempt of the Court by purporting to hold a departmental enquiry against the employee who was being prosecuted in a Court of law.

7. This question now would be concluded by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Security and Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Dattatraya Raghav Agge, AIR 1970 SC 720, wherein their Lordships made the following observations : -

"It is well established that an authority holding an inquiry in good faith in exercise of the powers vested in it by a statute is not guilty of contempt of Court, merely because a parallel inquiry is imminent or pending before a Court. To constitute