# Bhagwati Prasad Chaudhari v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 160
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7453 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwati-prasad-chaudhari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39922
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226- No
confidence motion- against Chairman
District Cooperative Bank- S.D.M. being
director held due to lack of requisite
majority- no confidence motion illegal-
High Court by judgement dated 3.1.03
had already held- the no confidence
motion as valid one- by impugned order
District Magistrate adjourn the meeting
on
the
pretext
that
the
Registrar
Cooperative Society has held the S.D.O.
as appropriate authority while High
Court
has
directed
that
District
Magistrate held- due to ulter motive the
District Magistrate adjourn the meeting .
Suo moto contempt proceeding initiated
- necessary direction issued to hold no
confidence motion on particular day
without any adjournment.

Held- Para 6

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.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
for such action as may be deemed
appropriate.

20. Special Appeal has no merit. It is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7453 of 2003

Bhagwati Prasad Chaudhari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Singh
Sri G.N. Kanaujiya

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226- No
confidence motion- against Chairman
District Cooperative Bank- S.D.M. being
director held due to lack of requisite
majority- no confidence motion illegal-
High Court by judgement dated 3.1.03
had already held- the no confidence
motion as valid one- by impugned order
District Magistrate adjourn the meeting
on
the
pretext
that
the
Registrar
Cooperative Society has held the S.D.O.
as appropriate authority while High
Court
has
directed
that
District
Magistrate held- due to ulter motive the
District Magistrate adjourn the meeting .
Suo moto contempt proceeding initiated
- necessary direction issued to hold no
confidence motion on particular day
without any adjournment.

Held- Para 6

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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.

3. The dispute in this case is
regarding no confidence motion against
the Chairman of the District Cooperative
Bank Limited, Mirzapur.

4. 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 Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam
and Hon'ble 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
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Bhagwati Prasad Chaudhari V. State of U.P. and others 161
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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. We, therefore, issue notice of
contempt of court to Sri Amrit Aabhijat,
District Magistrate, Mirzapur to show
cause as to why he should not be punished
for contempt of Court for violating the
judgment of this Court dated 3.1.03. The
District Magistrate, Mirzapur, Sri Amrit
Abhijat, should be personally present in
court on the date fixed along with his
reply. The learned Standing Counsel will
communicate this order to the District
Magistrate,
Mirzapur
forthwith.
We
further
direct
that
the
meeting
or
consideration of no confidence motion
will be held on Monday, March 3, 2003
and it shall not be adjourned on that date.

8. This order has been passed in
presence of Sri R.S. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel. The petitioner will
serve the respondents no. 2 and 4
personally within three days and then may
file counter affidavit by the next date
fixed in the matter i.e. 25.2.2003.
Standing counsel will also communicate
the order to the D.M., Mirzapur.

A certified copy of this order may be
given to the learned counsel for parties on
payment of usual charges to day.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 31, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21011 of 1991

District
Co-operative
Bank
Limited,
Azamgarh

...Petitioner
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Indal Singh
Sri Ashok Kumar Divedi
Sri Pradeep Kumar
S.C.

Payment
of
Wages
act-
15-
Reinstatement with back wages- wages
not quantified- workman not entitled for
10 times wages.

Held - Para 9

The third submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner appears to be
correct. Though, the award has not been
filed by either of the parties, however,
from a perusal of both the impugned
orders, it is apparent that the award had
not quantified the wages payable to the
respondent workmen. Also, there is
nothing on record to show that any
application
under
section
6-H
for
quantification
of
the
award
or
its
execution was filed. The petitioner had
clearly
stated
that
the
respondent
workman was reinstated in service on
2.9.1999
and
since
is
getting
all
emoluments admissible to him. This fact
has not been denied. Though , it is stated
that it has been treated to be an
appointment on probation. Be it may
that so, but there appears to be a
bonafide dispute as to the exact amount
of wages to be paid to the respondent
workman. A Division Bench of this Court
in the Case of Om Prakash Goel vs.
Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works Ltd.
and other (1973 ALJ 538) has held that
in such bonafide disputes with regard to
the amount of wages to be paid, the
authority
is
not
entitled
to
award
compensation at ten times of the claim.
Thus, in my view, the amount of
compensation
awarded
to
the
respondent workman by the authorities
below was not justified.
Case law discussed:
1973 ALJ 538

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Indal
Singh, learned counsel for the workman at
length.

2. The writ petition arises out of
proceedings under section 15 of the
Payment of Wages Act. It is admitted
position that the respondent no. 3 who
was posted as Peon-cum-Guard with the
petitioner Bank worked at least from 24th
October, 1979 to 30th June 1981 when his
services were terminated on 1.7.1988. The
aforesaid
termination
resulted
in
a
reference under section 4 K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court
passed an award dated 29th January, 1996
whereby the respondent workman was
reinstated with full back wages and
restored to his position as on 1.7.1981
with the same salary. The petitioner
challenged the award through a writ
petition before this Court. However, the
writ petition was dismissed by this Court
by an order dated 17th July, 1986.
Thereafter, since the salary was not being
paid to the respondent workman, he
lodged a case under section 15 of the