H. N. Seth, Sinha, JJ. - (1.) BEFORE whom this case came up for hearing felt that certain legal propositions enunciated by Hon'ble V. N. Verma, J in the case of Jai Dev Singh Arya v. Ram Sewak Misra, Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 82 of 1978, decided on 25th of April, 1979 required reconsideration. He has accordingly referred the case for decision by a Division Bench and this is how the matter has come up BEFORE us.
(2.) SARDAR Chanchal Singh (hereinafter called as the petitioner) filed an application under section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed that respondent Ram Sewak Misra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Rampur/Election Officer, Zaila Sahkari Federation Ltd., Rampur be punished for committing contempt of this Court inasmuch as he had disobeyed this Court's order dated 30th of August, 1978 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7371 of 1978. The facts giving rise to this petition are that an election for membership of the Committee of Management of Zila Sahkari Federation Ltd., Rampur was to take place on 11th of September, 1978 and respondent Sri Ram Sewak Misra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampur had been appointed as the Election Officer for the purpose. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7371 of 1978 in this Court challenging the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow dated 5th of August, 1978 whereby he had made certain amendments in the bye-laws of the Federation. On 30th of August, 1978 this Court passed the following order in that writ petition :- "Issue notice. The petitioners are permitted to serve respondent no. 5 personally also and to file an affidavit of service within two weeks. Office will supply necessary notices etc., for this purpose to the counsel for the petitioners. The notice issued to respondent no. 5 will indicate that this application will be listed for further orders on 13-9-78. We are satisfied that if in the meantime no interim order is granted the petitioners may be put to loss which may not adequately be compensated jn terms of money. We accordingly direct that even though the election may take place as scheduled but the result may not be announced meanwhile. List this application for further orders on 3-9-78. Sd/ N. D. O. & R. R. R.5 30-8-78" On 11th of September, 1978 the Election Officer held the election as scheduled and after the voting was over he counted the votes. Whereas according to the petitioner the respondent, after counting the votes, proceeded to announce the result of the election as well, the respondent claims that he did not make any such announcement. The grievance of the petitioner is that by counting the votes and announcing the result of the election, the respondent deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court dated 30th of August, 1978 and committed gross contempt of court for which he should be punished.
(3.) LEARNED single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing, after considering the allegations made in various affidavits came to the conclusion that it was not safe to act on the affidavit filed by the petitioner alone and to hold on that basis that the petitioner had announced the result. He did not find any reason for not accepting the averment made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that on l!th of September, 1978 after counting the votes he did not formally declare the result thereof. He observed that in the circumstances of the case he did not consider it safe to act on the affidavit filed by the petitioner alone for concluding that the respondent had after counting the votes, formally declared the result of the election as well. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Verma, J. in case of Jai Dev Singh Arya v. Ram Sewak Misra, Civil Misc. Contempt Application no. 82 of 1978, decided on 25-4-79 wherein it was held that under Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 mere counting of votes by the Returning Officer, in the presence of the parties, amounted to announcement of the result of the election. The petitioner, therefore, contended that in the instant case also, even if the respondent did not formally declare that any particular candidate stood elected, the result of election stood announced as soon as counting of the votes was completed by the respondent in presence of the concerned parties, and that this action of the respondent was in contravention of this Court's order dated 30-8-1978. Learned single Judge, before whom this petition came up for hearing, however was of opinion that having regard to the provisions of Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 mere counting of votes in the presence of the parties did not result in announcing the result of the election. According to him Rule 444 contemplates a formal declaration of result after the counting of votes is completed by the Election Officer. He therefore, felt that the decision of Hon. Verma, J. in the case of Jai Dev Singh Arya (supra) required re-consideration and referred the case for decision by a Bench of two Judges. While making the reference the learned Judge also relied upon a decision in the case of B. K. Das v. C. J. of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1366 and observed that in the circumstances of the case the respondent could reasonably construe the order dated 30th of August, 1978 passed by this Court as meaning that he was only restrained from making a formal announcement of the result under clause (4) of Rule 444 and that in cases where a particular order is capable of being understood in two ways and the contemner interprets it in one of two ways, he cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of court. As in his opinion the order dated 30th of August, 1978 was capable of an interpretation that the Election Officer had been merely restrained from formally announcing the result of the election and it could not be said that he was liable to be punished for disobeying the order of the Court.;