JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, Sinha, JJ. 1. BEFORE whom this case came up for hearing felt that certain legal propositions enunciated by Hon'ble V. N. Verma, J in the case of Jai Dev Singh Arya v. Ram Sewak Misra, Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 82 of 1978, decided on 25th of April, 1979 required reconsideration. He has accordingly referred the case for decision by a Division Bench and this is how the matter has come up BEFORE us. 2. SARDAR Chanchal Singh (hereinafter called as the petitioner) filed an application under section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed that respondent Ram Sewak Misra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Rampur/Election Officer, Zaila Sahkari Federation Ltd., Rampur be punished for committing contempt of this Court inasmuch as he had disobeyed this Court's order dated 30th of August, 1978 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7371 of 1978. The facts giving rise to this petition are that an election for membership of the Committee of Management of Zila Sahkari Federation Ltd., Rampur was to take place on 11th of September, 1978 and respondent Sri Ram Sewak Misra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampur had been appointed as the Election Officer for the purpose. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7371 of 1978 in this Court challenging the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow dated 5th of August, 1978 whereby he had made certain amendments in the bye-laws of the Federation. On 30th of August, 1978 this Court passed the following order in that writ petition :- "Issue notice. The petitioners are permitted to serve respondent no. 5 personally also and to file an affidavit of service within two weeks. Office will supply necessary notices etc., for this purpose to the counsel for the petitioners. The notice issued to respondent no. 5 will indicate that this application will be listed for further orders on 13-9-78. We are satisfied that if in the meantime no interim order is granted the petitioners may be put to loss which may not adequately be compensated jn terms of money. We accordingly direct that even though the election may take place as scheduled but the result may not be announced meanwhile. List this application for further orders on 3-9-78. Sd/ N. D. O. and R. R. R.5 30-8-78" 3. We accordingly direct that even though the election may take place as scheduled but the result may not be announced meanwhile. List this application for further orders on 3-9-78. Sd/ N. D. O. and R. R. R.5 30-8-78" 3. ON 11th of September, 1978 the Election Officer held the election as scheduled and after the voting was over he counted the votes. Whereas according to the petitioner the respondent, after counting the votes, proceeded to announce the result of the election as well, the respondent claims that he did not make any such announcement. The grievance of the petitioner is that by counting the votes and announcing the result of the election, the respondent deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court dated 30th of August, 1978 and committed gross contempt of court for which he should be punished. 4. LEARNED single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing, after considering the allegations made in various affidavits came to the conclusion that it was not safe to act on the affidavit filed by the petitioner alone and to hold on that basis that the petitioner had announced the result. He did not find any reason for not accepting the averment made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that on l!th of September, 1978 after counting the votes he did not formally declare the result thereof. He observed that in the circumstances of the case he did not consider it safe to act on the affidavit filed by the petitioner alone for concluding that the respondent had after counting the votes, formally declared the result of the election as well. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Verma, J. in case of Jai Dev Singh Arya v. Ram Sewak Misra, Civil Misc. Contempt Application no. 82 of 1978, decided on 25-4-79 wherein it was held that under Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 mere counting of votes by the Returning Officer, in the presence of the parties, amounted to announcement of the result of the election. Contempt Application no. 82 of 1978, decided on 25-4-79 wherein it was held that under Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 mere counting of votes by the Returning Officer, in the presence of the parties, amounted to announcement of the result of the election. The petitioner, therefore, contended that in the instant case also, even if the respondent did not formally declare that any particular candidate stood elected, the result of election stood announced as soon as counting of the votes was completed by the respondent in presence of the concerned parties, and that this action of the respondent was in contravention of this Court's order dated 30-8-1978. Learned single Judge, before whom this petition came up for hearing, however was of opinion that having regard to the provisions of Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 mere counting of votes in the presence of the parties did not result in announcing the result of the election. According to him Rule 444 contemplates a formal declaration of result after the counting of votes is completed by the Election Officer. He therefore, felt that the decision of Hon. Verma, J. in the case of Jai Dev Singh Arya (supra) required re-consideration and referred the case for decision by a Bench of two Judges. While making the reference the learned Judge also relied upon a decision in the case of B. K. Das v. C. J. of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1366 and observed that in the circumstances of the case the respondent could reasonably construe the order dated 30th of August, 1978 passed by this Court as meaning that he was only restrained from making a formal announcement of the result under clause (4) of Rule 444 and that in cases where a particular order is capable of being understood in two ways and the contemner interprets it in one of two ways, he cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of court. As in his opinion the order dated 30th of August, 1978 was capable of an interpretation that the Election Officer had been merely restrained from formally announcing the result of the election and it could not be said that he was liable to be punished for disobeying the order of the Court. 5. As in his opinion the order dated 30th of August, 1978 was capable of an interpretation that the Election Officer had been merely restrained from formally announcing the result of the election and it could not be said that he was liable to be punished for disobeying the order of the Court. 5. WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us Sri D. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sardar Chanchal Singh stated that the petitioner was dead and that as his heirs and legal representatives have not been brought on record, the application stands abated. He also stated that at this stage he had no further instructions to press the petition. 6. IN our opinion, merely because the person who moved the Court for taking proceedings for contempt of court is either dead or he does not want to pursue the application any further, it does not mean that the jurisdiction of the court to proceed to examine as to whether or not the respondent has committed contempt of court has come to an end. When an applicant informs the court that a particular person has disobeyed the Court order, he does not do so for enforcing bis personal rights. He does it with a view to lay the information before the Court so that the Court may, with a view to uphold its dignity, proceed against that person and punish him for his improper act. IN these circumstances, once the information had been laid before the court, its jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether the respondent has in fact committed contempt of court or not, does not come to an end merely because the petitioner is either dead or he does not want to proceed with the matter. We have accordingly proceeded to consider the case on merits. So far as the controversy between the parties with regard to formal announcement of the result by the election officer, after counting of votes was completed, is concerned we fully endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that it was not at all safe to act on the basis of affidavit filed by the petitioner alone and too, on the basis of that affidavit, disbelieve the affidavit of the respondent when he stated that after counting the votes he did not formally announce the result of the election. 7. 7. THE election for the membership of the Committee of Management scheduled for 11th of September, 1978 was to take place in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act read along with Rule 444 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 and real import of order dated 30th of August, 1978 passed by this Court directing that even though the election may take place as scheduled but the result may not be announced, has to be determined in the light of this statutory provision. 8. CLAUSE (4) of Rule 444 of the Rules framed under Act reads thus :- "The Election Officer shall announce the result of the election as soon as the counting is complete indicating the number of votes secured by each candidate." The requirement in the rule that the Election Officer shall announce the result of the election as soon as the counting is complete clearly envisages that even though the result of election might become obvious the moment counting of votes is completed, the Election Officer has yet to do something more i. e., he has to announce the result. When an Election Officer counts the number of votes cast in favour of a candidate, the result of the election does not stand announced as soon as the counting of votes of that candidate or last of such candidate is over. A candidate gets elected and becomes entitled to the privileges of a member only when the Election Officer, after completing the counting, announces that he having secured highest number of votes polled has been so elected. In our opinion, merely because after looking into the result of counting of votes made by the Returning Officer one is in a position to anticipate the announcement about the success of a particular candidate, it does not mean that the result of the election also stands announced. We are, therefore, unable to share the view expressed by Hon'ble V. N. Varma, J. that under this Rule the announcement of the result is deemed to be made when the votes of the candidates have been counted and the candidates come to know about the result. We are, therefore, unable to share the view expressed by Hon'ble V. N. Varma, J. that under this Rule the announcement of the result is deemed to be made when the votes of the candidates have been counted and the candidates come to know about the result. In this view of the matter merely because in the instant case the Election Officer had, with a view to ascertain the number of votes polled by each candidate, counted the votes, it did not mean that he had announced the result of the election as contemplated by Rule 444. Clear intention underlying the order dated 30th of August, 1978 was that till further orders from the Court no formal announcement of the result should be made by the Election Officer so that the candidate polling the highest number of votes may not be able to claim that he stood elected and to act on that basis. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the respondent had, merely by counting the votes polled by various candidates, disobyed the order passed by this Court on 30th of August, 1978. The charge against the respondent for committing contempt of this court by disobeying its order dated 30th of August, 1978, therefore, fails. 9. BEFORE parting with the case we would like to observe that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that mere counting of the number of votes polled in favour of various candidates amounted to announcement of the result, we are of opinion that the respondent could honestly interpret this Court's order dated 30th of August, 1978 in the manner in which he did viz. that he had merely been restrained from formally announcing the result of the election and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of B. K. Das v. C. J. Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1366 where the order passed by the Court is capable of being understood in two ways and the contemner interprets in one of those two ways, he should not be held guilty of contempt of Court. On this principle also, the respondent will be absolved of bis liability for the contempt alleged to have been committed by him. 10. On this principle also, the respondent will be absolved of bis liability for the contempt alleged to have been committed by him. 10. IN the result, we are of opinion that no case has been made out for punishing Ram Sewak Misra, Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar/Election Officer, Zila Sabkari Federation Ltd. Rampur for committing contempt of court. Notice issued to respondent Ram Sewak Misra is accordingly discharged. As Sardar Chanchal Singh who moved the application for contempt of court is dead, we do not think it necessary to make any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.