K.J.Sengupta, J. - (1.) This is an application for contempt of court alleging inspite of notice and knowledge of the Order passed by me on 6th August, 1997 in the writ petition being No. 12599(W) of 1997 the respondents and each of them violated the said order. It is further alleged in the petition that by a letter dated 6th August, 1997 an interim order of status quo passed by me was communicated to the respondents and each of them herein. It is further alleged in violation of the order of status quo the respondents and each of them have counted the votes and published the result and held Annual General Meeting.
(2.) The respondents and each of them after the rule was served upon them have duly filed separate affidavit-in-opposition. The defence and/or anwser in dealing with the allegations made in the Contempt Petition are identically same. The sum and substance of the defence taken by the respondents and each of them amongst other are as follows:- (i) None of the respondent has received the alleged communication being letter dated 6th August, 1997 addressed by Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Advocate was neither served nor received. The envelope which they received, did not contain any letter of communication dated 6th August, 1997 conveying the text of the order passed by me on 6th August, 1997, nor any copy of the order. They received the copies of the writ petition only. (ii) Immediately after receipt of the said envelope containing the copies of the writ petition the respondent No.1, viz., Sri Ratanlal Barat wrote a letter dated 11th August, 1997 to Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate for the petitioner contending and recording that they did not receive any communication nor any copy of the order excepting the copies of the writ petition. By the said letter dated 11th August, 1997 Shree Barat the Chairman asked the learned lawyer Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya to let him know whether the said writ petition was filed in the Hon'ble High Court or not. (iii) The order of status quo was granted with regard to election of delegates and holding of Annual General Meeting. It will appear from the writ petition itself, as well as, the records that the election of delegates of the concerned Society had already been held on 3rd and 4th May, 1997 and the Annual General Meeting was held on 5th July, 1997. So, the order which was passed on 6th August, 1997 was obtained upon suppression of the aforesaid fact and the order of status quo was of no effect. (iv) In any event, there was a dispute before the Co-operative Tribunal involving the very same subject matter between the friendly group of the writ petitioner and the respondents herein. On 8th August, 1997 the learned Tribunal passed an order asking the respondents to proceed with the follow up action of the Annual General Meeting. Accordingly, on 12th August, 1997 the result was published. So, there was no violation of the order of this court. Furthermore, even if there was any violation by any stretch of the imagination then the respondents and each of them did not have any knowledge of passing of the aforesaid order.
(3.) It has been further alleged that the petitoner herein has initiated this contempt proceeding having found himself unsuccessful before the Tribunal as a pressure tactics in abuse of the process of the court. Such conduct of the petitioner would be apparent from the fact that even the same very learned lawyer who was conducing hearing of the writ petition, on 8th August, 1997 appeared before the Co-operative Tribunal and did not made any whisper about the passing of order of status quo by this court and kept the said order under secret waiting for the favourable result and/or decision of the Tribunal. Having found unsuccessful in installing the said Annual General Meeting the petitioner herein has now resorted to this proceeding alleging contempt.;