SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE present Appeal is directed against the order dated 25th September 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition (Lodging) No. 82 of 2008 vide which the Court declined to take any action against the Respondents in that Petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and discharged the notice issued to the non Applicants.
(2.) IT is not necessary for us to notice the facts in detail, suffice it to notice that the Court dealing with Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2008 had passed the order dated 25th June 2008, which order reads as under : '1. Mr. Desai states that the petition will be numbered within a period of 10 days from today. 2. Upon this undertaking and statement the petition is taken up for admission. Heard Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Satalekar, A. G. P appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and the power of attorney holder of respondent is also present and heard. Learned A. G. P and the power of attorney holder waive service. 3. Prima facie, an arguable question with regard to the execution of bond contemplated by section 73 (1AB) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 58A arises for consideration. Whether the bond furnished by the Managing Committee members on one stamp paper but signed by each one of them except Mrs. Tarulata Sheth satisfies the legal requirement or not is the question. Prima facie there is no dispute that the bond is furnished within the statutory period of 15 days on assumption of office. Therefore, the order disqualifying the petitioner would require further scrutiny. Hence, Rule. Hearing expedited. 4. There will be interim order in terms of prayer clause (b). However, the benefit of this interim order shall not be available to Mrs Tarulata Sheth and the authorities can proceed on the basis that she stands disqualified as Managing Committee member. It is also clarified that the present interim order does not prevent the authorities from taking cognizance of any complaint and proceed against the Managing Committee members under sec. 78(1) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or otherwise, if requirements in that behalf are satisfied.' 3. According to the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition, it was claimed that the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.3 has not given effect to the said order of the Court and thus have violated the directions of the Court rendering them liable under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act'). The learned Single Judge heard the parties and after perusing the documents filed before it, held as under :' 6. It is not possible to comprehend as to how respondent nos. 1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court. The order passed by the Cooperative Court has been stayed by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1493 of 2008 by its order dated 25th June, 2008. The matter is pending in this Court. No direction has been given by any court to respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint an Administrator under Section 78 of the Cooperative Societies Act. No contempt, therefore, has been committed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and/or Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 7. Apart from that the petitioner is the constituted Power of Attorney of the member and therefore, even otherwise, is not competent to file a petition and argue on behalf of member. In any case, there is no substance in the submission made by the Constituted Power of Attorney of the petitioner who is appeared in person.' 4. The Respondents in the Appeal before us have taken a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the present Appeal. It is argued that once the Court declines to initiate a proceeding under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and/or drop the notice issued, said order is not appealable under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.;