1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2007 Kishor Dnyandeo Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus Ramdas Fakira Khairnar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate, for the petitioners. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel for the contempt petitioner. None for the respondents, though served. Perused the Contempt Petition and the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, Returning Officer. 2. To state in brief, in the election of the Co-operative Society, the petitioner No.1 was elected as Chairman of the Society and the petitioner No.2 was elected as Vice-Chairman due to casting vote of the Returning Officer because the rival candidates had 2 secured equal votes in the said election. The election of the present petitioner was challenged before the Co-operative Court, Nashik, by the members of the opposite party in ABN Case No.420 of 2006. By the judgment and order dated 20.2.2007, the election of the petitioner No.1 as Chairman and the election of the petitioner No.2 as Vice-Chairman was set aside and the opponent No.1 - Society and opponent No.2 - Ramdas Khairnar were directed to issue an agenda of the meeting and to conduct fresh election for the posts of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Society by following the procedure. This judgment and order came to be challenged by the petitioners and the members of their group in Appeal No.25 of 2007. As per the directions given by the Co-operative Court, the Returning Officer had already issued an agenda on 5.3.2007 for the election to be held on 9.3.2007. On 8.3.2007, the Co-operative Appellate Court passed an order that the Returning Officer shall conduct the election as per the agenda dated 5.3.2007, but shall not declare results till the next date and the notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 16.3.2007. According to the contempt petitioners, the said order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court was communicated to the petitioner No.1 by their Advocate by fax on 8.3.2007. A copy of that letter was submitted to the Returning Officer at about 11.20 a.m. on 9.3.2007, but he refused to accept. However, for some time the proceeding of 3 election was stopped and under the pressure from the members of the opposite group, he again commenced the proceedings at 1.20 p.m. At that time, the present petitioners gave a written letter along with a copy of the letter from their Advocate revealing the order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court. However, the Returning Officer endorsed on that letter that as the true copy of the order of the Court addressed to him was not tendered, he would continue to proceed as per the order passed by the Co-operative Court. According to the petitioners, inspite of the communication of the order of the Appellate Court, the Returning Officer declared result of the election and thus committed contempt of the Court. 3. The respondent No.1 filed his affidavit in reply wherein he contended that as per the agenda, the election was to be held at 11 a.m. on 9.3.2007. All the members except the petitioners were absent at that time. The election proceedings were over within a period of 20-30 minutes. The Returning Officer denied that election meeting was scheduled at 12 O’clock and that the petitioners had communicated the order to him before that. According to him, the said letter was submitted to him long after the election proceeding was completed and, therefore, he has not committed any contempt. 4 4. It is material to note that in the affidavit in reply, respondent No.1 has specifically stated that election proceedings started at 11 a.m. as per the agenda and the proceedings were over within 20 to 30 minutes. Though the petitioners have contended that the election meeting was to be held at 12 O’clock, the petitioners have not produced copy of the agenda in support of their contention nor they have filed any rejoinder to the affidavit in reply. In such circumstances, it appears that the election was, in fact, held at 11 a.m. and the proceedings were over within short time. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the respondent No.1 that the letter from the Advocate as well as the letter of the petitioners were tendered to the respondent No.1 after the election proceeding was over. If it is so, it cannot be said that any contempt was committed by the respondent NO.1. 5. It is further material to note that the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the judgment and order of the Co-operative Court was only partly allowed. The order of the Co-operative Court setting aside the election of the petitioner NO.1 as Chairman was confirmed by the appellate Court also and in the re-election also he lost that position. 6. As far as the election of petitioner No.2 as 5 Vice-Chairman of the Society is concerned, it was upheld by the Co-operative Appellate Court and to that extent the order of the Co-operative Court was set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that in the re-electioon held on 9.3.2007, the petitioner No.2 had also lost for the post of Vice-Chairman, but his earlier election as Vice-Chairman was upheld by the appellate Court. However, for restoration of the position as such he may seek remedy by appropriate proceeding as permitted under the law. 7. In any case, in view of the facts stated above, no contempt appears to have been committed. In the result, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)