1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.197 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.3808 of 2010 [Shri Khokan Sardar and others v. G.T. Satghare, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Bhandara and another] Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Mujumdar, AGP for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 6 th December, 2010 1. In Writ Petition No.3808 of 2010 filed by the petitioners challenging the show cause notice dated 9-7-2010 issued under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 12-8-2010 as under : “ Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 9.7.2010. We direct that during the pendency of the appeal no steps for taking charge of society be 2 initiated. The society's charge shall not be disturbed for a period of fifteen days from the date of decision of the appeal, in case the decision is adverse to them. Rule disposed of in above terms.” The complaint in the instant contempt petition is that this order has been willfully disobeyed by the respondents, as the Society has been superseded by an order dated 12-8-2010 and taking over the charge by appointing an Administrator on 13-8-2010. The contention is that this order was communicated to the respondents orally on 12-8-2010 itself, however in ignorance of the same, the order under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act has been passed on 12-8-2010, which amounts to contempt of Court. 2. The fact that the order dated 12-8-2010 was communicated to the respondents on the same day, has been denied by the respondent No.1 by filing an affidavit dated 22-11-2010. There is oath against oath. The charge of contempt is quasi criminal in nature. The benefit of doubt should go to the respondents. Hence, it can be said that the petitioners have failed to establish that the order dated 12-8-2010 was communicated to the respondents orally on the very same day. 3. Shri Tambde, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged that undisputedly the order of this Court dated 12-8-2010 was communicated in writing to the respondents on 16-8-2010 and when this order was brought to the notice of the respondents, they have acted to implement the said order by calling a meeting of no confidence on 3 17-8-2010 as per the notice dated 3-8-2010. This shows that the respondents have accepted the position that the order dated 12-8-2010 passed under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot be implemented in view of the order dated 12-8-2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3808 of 2010. 4. The response of the learned AGP appearing for the respondents is that the order under Section 78(1) of the said Act was passed on 12-8-2010 and, the Administrator had taken over the charge on 13-8-2010. Thus, the order under Section 78(1) was fully complied with by the time it was communicated to the respondents on 16-8-2010. However, it was due to misunderstanding of the order passed by this Court that the meeting of the Body superseded, was called on 17-8-2010 in view of the notice dated 3-8-2010. According to him, this will not establish the ground that the order passed by this Court was communicated on 12-8-2010. I do not find any reason as to why this explanation should not be accepted. If an action is taken on the basis of the misunderstanding of the order, then the same cannot be a subject matter of the contempt, to hold that the order was communicated on 12-8-2010. 5. The learned AGP submits that in fact the order dated 12-8-2010 passed by this Court in Wri't Petition No.3808 of 2010 proceeds on the footing that the petitioners had preferred a statutory appeal, which was pending, and, therefore, this Court had passed an order that during the pendency of the appeal, no steps for taking charge of the Society be initiated. It is on the basis of this assumption, the further order was passed by this Court that the Society's charge shall not be disturbed for a 4 period of fifteen days from the date of the decision of the appeal, in case the decision is adverse to the petitioners. He submits that in fact no appeal was preferred by the petitioners challenging the show cause notice dated 9-7-2010 and on the date when the order was passed on 12-8-2010, no such appeal was pending. 6. Shri Tambde, the learned counsel for the petitioners, does not dispute this position and submits that subsequently on 24-8-2010, the appeal was filed. He, however, submits that he had never argued before this Court that any such appeal was filed or pending. However, it seems that either because of the misstatement or because of the gap of the communication, this Court had proceeded to pass an order on the assumption that the appeal was pending. 7. Perusal of the order passed by this Court reveals that if the appeal was not pending on the date of passing of an order, then the order itself would become ineffective. Hence, there is no question of contempt, when the order passed by this Court on 12-8-2010 was not brought to the notice of the respondents on the same day. 8. In view of this, I do not find any reason to continue with the contempt proceedings. The contempt proceedings are, therefore, dropped. Judge pdl