IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.862 of 2011 Between: Pulavarti Karthik & others. … Petitioners And Sri T. Rajeswar Rao The District Registrar, Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act/ District Cooperative Officer, Guntur & another. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Y. Narayan Anjaneyacharyulu for Smt. K. Sesharajyam Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.2: Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.862 of 2011 ORDER:- This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 22.03.2011, in WPMP.No.7122 of 2011 in W.P.No.5719 of 2011. The short ground on which the order of this Court is allegedly violated is that even though a specific direction was given to respondent No.1 to convene a general body meeting of the society in question for appointment of ad hoc committee for holding elections, respondent No.2 has convened the meeting. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits, wherein they have denied the abovementioned allegation. They have specifically pleaded that notice for general body meeting was issued by respondent No.2 by order of respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the respondents placed before the Court the paper publication of the notice, a perusal of which shows that the same was issued in the name of the Chief Executive Officer of the Guntur Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Guntur “by order of the District Registrar for MACS/District Cooperative Officer, Guntur”. Even in the notice it is stated that it was decided to convene the general body meeting in pursuance of order, dated 22.03.2011, of this Court in WVMP.No.1060 of 2011 in WPMP.No.7122 of 2011 in W.P.No.5719 of 2011 and WPMP.No.8399 of 2011 in W.P.No.6746 of 2011 and the members, who are eligible to vote, were given notices to participate in the general body meeting, which is proposed to be convened by the District Registrar. Respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit stated that respondent No.1 alone presided over the general body meeting, wherein ad hoc committee to conduct elections was elected by the general body, which was mentioned in proceedings, dated 14.07.2011, of respondent No.1. The above contents of the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner. From the material discussed above, I am convinced that it is only respondent No.1, who convened the general body and conducted the meeting held for election of ad hoc committee. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contempt case and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.08.2011 ES