BAPUSAHEB BALASAHEB PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has been referred to us for our decision by the Division Bench is as follows:

(2.) The question arises in these circumstances: Respondent No. 3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondetn No. 3 was held on 18-11-1970 under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on 19-11-1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondetn No. 3 held on the date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected to be the directors of the Board. On 25-11-1970 the petitioners applied to the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kolkhapur, respondent No. 17, to have the said election of the Board k of Directors of respondetn No. 3 set aside on the ground that several illegalities were committed and malpractice's were indulged in during the election. The dispute so referred by the petitioners to respondetn No. 17 was referred by respondent No. 17 was k referred by respondent. No. 17 to respondent No. 2 for her decision. Respondetn No. 2 happens to be an Officer on Special Duty appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners prayed for an ad interim injunction restraining the Society (respondent No. 3) from giving charge of the affairs of the Society to the newly elected Board of Directors which comprised respondents Nos. 4 to 16 and further restraining the newly elected Board of Directors from taking charge from respondetn No. 3 and an injunction was also sought restraining respondents Nos. 4 to 16 from exercising any power of rights as elected members of the Board of Directors. On 27-11-1970 respondetn No.2 passed an order granting interim injunction to the following effect: Respondent No. 3 being the Society was temporarily restrained from giving charge to the newly elected Board of Directors viz., respondents Nos. 4 to 13 and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were restrained from taking charge from respondent No. 3 till the final disposal of the case. Since respondent No. 16 was erstwhile Managing Director of respondetn NO. 3, the first part of the injunction really operated against him, in the sense that he was restrained from handing over charge of the affairs of the Society to the newly elected Board of Directors. This order of injunction issued by respondetn No. 2 was served on respondents Nos. 3, 4, 14, 15 and 16 on the very day i.e. 27-11-1970 while it was served on respondents Nos. 6, 9, 12 and 13 on 28-11-1970 . It also appears that this order was published in a local newspaper 'Pudhari Daily' of Kolhapur, on 29-11-1970. According to the petitioners, in spite of service of this injunction order on the several respondents, as mention order on the several respondents, as mention order on the several respondents, as mentioned above, on 30-11-1970 the first meeting of the newly elected Board of Directors of respondetn No. 3 was convinced which was attended by respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 & 16 at which the charge of the affairs of the factory was taken over by the newly elected Board of Directors and at that meeting the new Chairman, Vice-Chairman and sub-committees were elected and even the resolution authorising withdrawal of funds from the Bank account was passed. The petitioners therefore, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 1971 in this Court praying for action being taken against respondents Nos. 4 to 13, 15 and 16 for contempt of Court alleging that they committed several of the aforesaid acts in the meeting that was convened on 30-11-1970 in utter disregard and disobedience of the injunction order issued by respondent No. 2 on 27-11-1970. On behalf l of the alleged contemners a two -fold plea was raised in the affidavit in reply that was filed. In the first place, it was contended that respondetn No. 2 was not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and as such no action in contempt could lie against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952; and secondly it was on merits emphatically denied that they had committed any contempt as alleged by the petitioners. It was urged that several alleged acts said to have been indulged in by the contemners did not constitute any contempt or disobedience of the order passed by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) When the petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench a question was raised whether respondent No. 2 who was the Officer on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notification dated 11-3-1969 was a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, while the said Officer discharges his duties under the Act and since the Division Bench felt that the question was a question of considerable importance because it was of frequent occurrence and the jurisdiction under the Co-operative Societies Act exercised by the Officers on Special Duty was repidly increasing and the question requires to be finally and authoritatively settled so as to guide not only the Officers concerned but the public at large. That is ho the question mentioned at the commencement of the judgment has come to be referred to us for our decision.