M. Katju, J. - (1.) STANDING counsel is granted one week's time to file counter affidavit. List peremptorily on 25th February, 2003.
(2.) THIS case illustrates how the executive authorities have now started disobeying the orders of this Court by giving scant regard to the same. The dispute in this case is regarding no confidence motion against the Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Mirzapur. The controversy came up before this court in writ petition no. 55526 of 2002, Ranjan Jaiswal vs. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UP Lucknow and others, which was decided on 3.1.2003, vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A Division Bench of Honourable S. Rafat Alam and Honourable D.P. Singh, JJ allowed the writ petition in which the District Magistrate, Mirzapur as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Mirzapur as also the Director of the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Mirzapur were respondents. In this case it was held that the no confidence motion was not invalid for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority because two third members were present in the meeting.
(3.) WE would have expected that after this judgment the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence would have been held on 27.1.2003 as had been fixed earlier, but by the impugned order dated 25.1.2003 the meeting has been adjourned, vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, respondent no. 2 in this petition. In the impugned order the District Magistrate states that there are contradiction regarding the decision of the dispute regarding the validity of nomination of nominated members. According to him the High Court has held that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to decide the objections, whereas the Registrar Cooperative Societies is of the opinion, vide his letter dated 17.1.2003, that the controversy has to be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has decided the controversy. According to the District Magistrate, as mentioned in his impugned order, there is contradiction between the direction of the Registrar, who has directed that the controversy will be decided by the sub Divisional Magistrate and the judgment of this court dated 6.1.2003, which has directed that the controversy should be decided by the District Magistrate. Thus, it appears that the District Magistrate is of the opinion that the Registrar's order is contrary to the view expressed by this Court in its judgment dated 3.1.2003. We fail to understand how a senior officer like the District Magistrate is of the opinion that the Registrar, Cooperative Society's order will prevail over the opinion expressed by this court in its judgment. Prima facie it seems to us that it was with ulterior motive that the District Magistrate, Mirzapur has passed the impugned order to adjourn the meeting of no confidence on some flimsy pretext . Thus, he appears to have committed gross contempt of the order of this Court dated 3.1.2003.;