JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The litigations giving rise to this petition have a chequered history. There was rivalry between Khushi Ram Sharma petitioner No. I, and his camp followers, for the office of President, Secretary and Directors of the District Co-operative Federation Meerut on the one hand, and Fateh Singh Rana and Abdul Halim, on the other. The matters were brought to the High Court by one party or the other at different stages in support of their respective claims. Suffice it to mention that Civil Misc. Writ No. 554 of 1966 was brought by the present petitioners against the order of the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Meerut dated February 5, 1966, ordering Fateh Singh Rana to be the President of the Federation. The above petition was allowed on April 4, 1966 by G.C. Mathur, J., who also quashed the order of the Dy. Registrar and held that the Board of Directors elected on September 8, 1965 was valid, which was headed by Khushi Ram Sharma, petitioner No. 1. Mr. A.B. Saran, counsel for the petitioners, was also appearing for them in the above writ, so he sent a detailed telegram, inter alia, to Fateh Singh Rana who had been elected as President of the Board on April 27, 1965, communicating the above order of the High Court. Copies of the telegram were also sent to other respondents. The Board headed by Fateh Singh Rana called an Annual General Meeting for April 5, 1966 to consider the matter and is alleged to have elected Abdul Halim respondent, as President and Kalyan Singh, respondent, as Secretary of the Federation. 2. I have already stated above that the order of the Dy. Registrar dated February 5, 1966 directing Fateh Singh Rana to be the President had been quashed by G.C. Mathur, J., on April 4, 1966. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the Annual General Meeting was duly held on April 5, 1966 wherein a new Board headed by Abdul Halim as President was returned to power. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the order of G. C. Mathur, J., dated April 4, 1966 they took over charge of the Board headed by Khushi Ram Sharma. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the order of G. C. Mathur, J., dated April 4, 1966 they took over charge of the Board headed by Khushi Ram Sharma. Against the aforesaid order dated April 4, 1966 passed by G.C. Mathur, J. the respondents filed Special Appeal No. 264 of 1966 and obtained an ex-parte order suspending the operation of the order passed by the single Judge on April 4, 1966. The petitioners rushed to the High Court and applied for vacation of the interim order of the Division Bench passed in Special Appeal, aforesaid. This application came up for hearing before the Bench on April 29, 1966, the relevant portion of whose order is as follows :- ".........Meanwhile let an order issue to the authorities concerned to ensure that with regard to the possession over the District Co-operative Federation and its assets, status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained until further orders." The petitioners counsel in the Spl. Appeal again sent detailed telegrams to Khushi Ram Sharma and copies thereof to the present respondents, The certified copy of the above order was also sent by special messenger. The telegrams had admittedly reached them on the, morning of April 30, 1966. The letter containing the certified copy of the High Courts order had also reached them a little later the same morning. 3. Meanwhile on April 27, 1966 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, had passed an order that the Board elected on April 5, 1966 with Abdul Halim as President should be put in possession of the property and office of the Board. A copy of this order had also been sent to the petitioners. 4. The allegation of the petitioners is that inspite of the receipt of the copy of the interim order of the High Court dated April 29, 1966 the Asstt. Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Meerut, sent written instructions to the State Bank of India, the Hindustan Commercial Bank, the Punjab National Bank and District Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Meerut, saying that the accounts; of the District Co-operative Federation, Ltd., Meerut, should not be operated upon by anybody till fresh instructions are issued from the department. Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Meerut, sent written instructions to the State Bank of India, the Hindustan Commercial Bank, the Punjab National Bank and District Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Meerut, saying that the accounts; of the District Co-operative Federation, Ltd., Meerut, should not be operated upon by anybody till fresh instructions are issued from the department. The contention of the petitioners is that the issue of the above directions by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, amounted to contempt of this Court inasmuch as by its order dated April 29, 1966 it had ordered maintenance of status quo qua the Federation and its assets. To put it differently, their contention is that inasmuch as the petitioners had been in possession of the Federation and its assets, they had full authority to operate the accounts with the aforesaid Banks, in terms of the High Courts order dated April 29, 1966. 5. I should have mentioned earlier that out of the five respondents; Takru, J., had ordered issue of notice only to respondents 2 and 3, i.e., the Dy. Registrar and the Asstt. Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Meerut. Respondent No. 3, P. B. Saxena, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, put in a contest by filing his counter affidavit. It has been urged on his be-, half that inasmuch as three different Boards of Directors were claiming the right to function the Federation and inasmuch as there were allegations and counter allegations of mismanagement of the funds of the Federation against one another and the financial involvements thereof, he had in the interest of the Federation bona fide issued the letters of instruction to the various Banks. 6. It also transpires that the interim order dated April 29, 1966 was contested by the respondents, with the result that by its order dated May 18, 1966 the Division Bench modified its earlier order dated April 29, 1966 to this; extent that none of the persons against whom there were allegations of financial irregularities get charge of the Funds of the Federation and in view of the fact that the District Magistrate, Meerut, was an ex officio Director of the Federation a modified interim order was issued directing that the affairs of the Federation, during the pendency of the Special Appeal, should be managed by the District Magistrate of Meerut, in whom shall vest all the authority of the Federation for this limited period. It was further observed that the District Magistrate could administer the affairs of the Federation himself or through any other officer subordinate to him, except an officer belonging to the department of Registrar Cooperative Societies. 7. It is the settled view of the Supreme Court of India as well as of this Court that in a case of alleged disobedience of an order of a Court of law by a public servant, the latter could not be found guilty of contempt of the court unless wilful culpability on the part of the officer was established. In other words, the contempt by a public servant must be deliberate, corrupt and malafide. In the instant case, there are no such allegations against the two respondents, nor is there any other material on record to suggest that they had acted in that manner. In fact, the High Court itself had laterly considered it proper not to allow any of the contending parties to deal with the moneys and assets of the Federation, which had been placed under the charge of the District Magistrate, Meerut. 8. In view of the above discussion and findings the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.