IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 82 OF 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 82 OF 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 82 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2008 Mrs.Savitri Sippy ...Petitioner vs. Mr.Shashikant Ghorpade & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Veena Sippy, Constituted Attorney of Petitioner in person present. Mr.Satelkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.S. Ghadge for Respondent No.3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Ms.Veena Sippy who is Constituted Attorney of the petitioner who is appearing in person. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though an order was passed by this Court on 25th June, 2008 whereby the order passed by the appellate court was confirmed, so far as Mrs.Charulata Sheth is concerned, the respondent no.3 - society has not given the effect to the said order and therefore, the respondents have committed breach of the order passed by this Court and they are liable under the provisions of the Contempt of - 2 - Courts Act, 1971. 3. The respondents no.3 to 12 have filed affidavit in which they have stated that after the order was served on the respondents, they have given effect to the said order and as a result Mrs.Charulata Sheth is no longer a member of the Managing Committee. 4. Taking into consideration the documents which are annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the society, in my view, no case is made out by the petitioner against the respondents. In view of the statement made by the respondents in their affidavit that Mrs.Charulata Sheth is no longer the member of the Managing Committee, the petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 5. In addition to the contempt alleged against respondent nos.3 to 12, it is further alleged in the petition that respondent no.1 - Shashikant Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay City 1 and respondent no.2 - Rajkumar Patil, - 3 - Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies ’D’ Ward, also have committed the contempt since they have failed to take cognisance of the petitioner’s complaint and proceed against the Managing Committee members under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the Managing Committee members have been illegally in power from June 2002 due to non-execution/wrong execution of the bonds in the form of a joint bond in violation of Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and therefore, the Registrar ought to have taken cognisance of the petitioner’s complaint and proceed against the Managing Committee members under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act. It is submitted that therefore, respondent nos.1, 2 and 7 have committed contempt of court. 6. It is not possible to comprehend as to how respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court. The order passed by the Co-operative Court has been stayed by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1493 of 2008 by its order dated - 4 - 25th June, 2008. The matter is pending in this Court. No direction has been given by any court to respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint an Administrator under Section 78 of the Co-operative Societies Act. No contempt, therefore, has been committed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and/or Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 7. Apart from that the petitioner is the constituted Power of Attorney of the member and therefore, even otherwise, is not competent to file a petition and argue on behalf of member. In any case, there is no substance in the submission made by the Constituted Power of Attorney of the petitioner who is appearing in person. 8. Contempt Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)