// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.621/2006 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2174/2006 Girdharilal Chabra S/o Shri A.C. Chabra Versus Shri Yogesh Kumar Pathak and Others Date of Order ::: 08.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajvir Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri A.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging therein disobedience of the order of this Court dated 18th May, 2006, whereby this Court directed the Registrar of the Societies to appoint an Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the Act to take charge of the administration of the concerned Society and the Administrator was directed to appoint an Election Officer to conduct the elections of the Executive Committee of the Society in accordance with the bylaws of the Societies. It was also observed that the disputes have been raised with regard to eligibility of the newly added members of the aforesaid Society, which would be decided by the Election Officer and thereafter the elections will be held. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the direction of this Court, the disputes in respect of eligibility of the newly added members of the Society was not decided before // 2 // election, therefore, the respondents committed a contempt of the order of this Court. A notice to show-cause was issued to the respondents and, in pursuance thereof, the respondent No.3 has filed reply to the contempt petition. So far as appointment of Administrator and Election Officer is concerned, the same has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute is only in respect of the decision by the Election Officer in respect of newly added members of the concerned Society. According to the reply, the dispute in this regard was decided by the Election Officer before holding the election. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent No.3 way back on 9th August, 2007. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the reply supported by an affidavit. The dispute about newly added member, decided by the Election Officer, cannot be judged on merits in this contempt petition. It is further relevant to mention that the term of the concerned Society has already expired and fresh election has also taken place thereafter. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that no contempt is made out. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//