KU. VIJAY BHATNAGAR AND ORS. Vs. TARACHAND GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Contempt Petition is fled complaining non -compliance of order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jabalpur, which was passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition M.P. No. 5022/1989. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners are the daughters of one late Shri N.P. Bhatnagar and Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar, who were the founder members of Siddharth Co -operative Society. The land so obtained by the said society was subsequently acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority. A compromise had taken place between the Co -operative Society and the Jabalpur Development Authority and 45 plots were made available for allotment of the same to the members of the said Cooperative Society. Since the plot was not allotted to the above said founder member late Shri N.P. Bhatnagar, he was required to file a writ petition before this Court. This Court directed that in fact a dispute under Section 64 of the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act should be fled.

(2.) THE issue was raised before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in Misc. Case No. 63 -8/1995. The said dispute was decided and it was specifically ordered that the allotment of Plot No. 585 made in the name of Shri K.D. Barapatre, was to be cancelled and that plot was to be allotted to the father of the petitioners. The appeal was preferred against the said order before the Joint Registrar, Co -operative Societies, who passed the order on 18.5.2005 categorically directing that the amount was deposited by the appellants in Appeal No. 77 -5/1996 in the name of the Co -operative Societies. There was no need to make any deposit in terms of the resolution of the Society dated 22.8.1982. In fact, the respondent Co -operative Society was required to obtain consent from Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre, who was appellant in Appeal No. 77 -80/95 and the plot No. 585 may be allotted to the petitioners. In case the consent is not granted, any other plot available with the respondent -Society may be allotted to the petitioners. This common order was passed in the appeal fled by the petitioners and said Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre.

(3.) THIS Contempt Petition is fled only on the basis that such an order was passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, holding that the order passed by the said authority was not complied with by the respondent and, therefore, contempt of the Court was committed. A reply has been fled by the respondent stating inter alia that the common order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 18.5.2005 was complied with. Since Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre had not given the consent for allotment of the plot to the petitioners, the plot in question was allotted to Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre. Since thereafter, no plot was available with the Society, it was not possible for the Society to allot any plot to the petitioners. This fact was pointed out to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies when a reply was fled in the Contempt Case fled by the petitioners before the said authority. However, the original order of the Joint Registrar itself was modified saying that seniority of the membership was not to be interfered with by the President of the Society and since the consent was not shown by said Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre, even than according to the seniority of the founder member in the society, the plot was required to be allotted to the said founder member, and as such it was said that the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 18.5.2005 was not complied with. By fling an affidavit, this fact is clarified that since the consent was not given by Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre, the Plot No. 585 already stood allotted in her name. There was no question of changing the said allotment as this was not the specific order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The question of seniority was looked into only in the contempt proceedings and not when the original order was passed in appeals of the petitioners and said Smt. Tara Bai Barapatre, therefore, no modification in the original order was permissible and it was not to be held that the respondent has committed contempt of the Court.