BHAGWATI PRASAD CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STANDING counsel is granted one week's time to file counter affidavit. List peremptorily on 25th February, 2003.

(2.) THIS case illustrates how the executive authorities have now started disobeying the orders of this Court by giving scant regard to the same.

(3.) WE would have expected that after this judgment the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence would have been held on 27.1.2003 as had been fixed earlier, but by the impugned order dated 25.1.2003 the meeting has been adjourned, vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, respondent no. 2 in this petition. In the impugned order the District Magistrate states that there are contradiction regarding the decision of the dispute regarding the validity of nomination of nominated members. According to him the High Court has held that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to decide the objections, whereas the Registrar Cooperative Societies is of the opinion, vide his letter dated 17.1.2003, that the controversy has to be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has decided the controversy. According to the District Magistrate, as mentioned in his impugned order, there is contradiction between the direction of the Registrar, who has directed that the controversy will be decided by the sub Divisional Magistrate and the judgment of this court dated 6.1.2003, which has directed that the controversy should be decided by the District Magistrate.