1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 90/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2064/2005 (Mrs. Manda Siddharth Patil and anr. Vs. The Gandhinagar Co-op. Housing Society & 15 ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. N.A. Vyawahare, Adv. For R-1. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 15 th APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri Kshirsagar for the petitioners, and Shri Vyawahare for the respondent no.1. By this contempt petition, the petitioners are seeking action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8/7/2005 in Writ Petition No. 2064/2005 and further to punish the contemners for the same. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the Registrar has neither proceeded afresh in the matter under the provisions of Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, nor has issued any notice under Section 79 of the Act to the Society to produce the documents. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the 2 respondent no.1- Society was directed to take permission from the Registrar to sell or purchase the properties of the Society. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act as well as the respondent no.1- Society have deliberately flouted the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th July, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2005. It is conspicuous to note that this Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, on 12/4/2007, had directed issuance of notice before admission to the respondent no.1-Society only. It is, thus, clear that this Court was clearly of the view that the authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act cannot be said to have committed any contempt of the orders of this Court and no proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 could be initiated against them. The notice was, however, issued to the respondent no.1- Society only so far as it related to the violation of the condition no.5 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th July, 2005, whereby the respondent no.1 was directed to take permission from the Registrar before selling or purchasing of the property. I have heard the learned counsel for the 3 parties at length. I have also perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th July, 2005 of which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. It is reiterated that the contempt proceedings could not be initiated against the Registrar as the Registrar was not directed either to proceed afresh under the provisions of Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, or to issue notice under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to the Society to produce the documents. The order dated 8th July, 2005 does not disclose that the Registrar was asked to complete the enquiry which was initiated under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. Clause (5) of the order dated 8th July, 2005, also does not disclose that the Society was directed to take permission from the Registrar before selling or purchasing of the property. Nothing has been produced on record by the petitioners and it is also not the case of the petitioner that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act or any other law in force, it was necessary for the Society to seek the permission of the Registrar before selling and purchasing the property. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that this Court had, by the order dated 8th July, 2005, directed the Society to take permission from 4 the Registrar before selling or purchasing the properties. This Court had kept the issue of seeking permission from the Registrar to sell or purchase the property, open. On the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondent no.1-Society cannot be said to have committed willful disobedience of the order dated 8th July, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2064/2005. The contempt proceedings against the respondent no.1-Society, therefore, are dropped. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP