SRIRARNPURAM CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. SHAHAR BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this contempt petition arises upon the following facts: on 7th february, 1991 the state govern men I passed an order appointing the respondent-special officer of the srirampuram co-operative bank limited, srirampuram, Bangalore for the period of one year with immediate effect. The writ petition was filed to impugn this order. On 25th february, 1991 a learned single judge of this court passed an interim order in the writ petition which staled, "pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition.........the operation of the order dated 7th february, 1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 in No. Cmw-13-clm-91 (annexure-f to the wp) be and the same is hereby stayed." as is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the said stay order was received in the tappal Section of her office in theevening of 25th february, 1991 and it came to her knowledge on the afternoon of 26th february, 1991. On 26th february, 1991, the respondent suspended one nagalingaiah, the manager of the bank, and relieved him of his duties from that day. In the preamble to the suspension order the respondent stated that she had been appointed special officer of the bank on 7th february, 1991 in place of its board of directors and, in pursuance of the said appointment Order, had assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991. The contempt petition alleges that the respondent committed contempt of court in that the respondent issued the suspension Order, acting as special officer, despite knowledge of the said stay order.

(2.) the respondent's counter-affidavit contends that the suspension order was passed by her on the morning of 26th february, 1991, that is, before she came to know of the said stay order. She assumed charge as special officer on 7th february, 1991 and the said stay order was passed on 25th february, 1991; the said stay order had, therefore, become infructuous. The contempt petition had been filed after she had functioned as special officer for more than 9 months. She was no longer the special officer of the bank in view of the government order dated 12th december, 1991 by which the period of appointment of the special officer had been extended by one more year and one d.t. kempaiah, co-operative development officer, had been appointed as special officer in her place.

(3.) the contempt petition reached hearing on the 11th instant. It was contended by the learned Advocate general appearing on behalf of the respondent that, since the respondent had assumed charge on 7th february, 1991 and the said stay order had been issued on 25th february, 1991, the said stay order had become inoperative. The contempt petition stood adjourned to today when we asked the Advocate general to satisfy us that that was the position of law. The matter has accordingly reached hearing again today.