ORDER : By our detailed order dated April 27, 1983 the Petitioners were directed to give, amongst others, the following information in respect of Canara Bank Officers Association Trust Fund (Trust for short) : "Name of each contributors to the Trust fund, the amount of contribution, relation of the contributor to the bank and whether at any point of time, the contributor had been using or enjoying the services of the bank especially from the branch in which the trustee was working and the contributor was connected to the branch". 2. S.A. Kini, one of the Petitioners, filed his affidavit to which was annexed a list showing the amount received from each individual/firm/ company. It is annexure IV at pages 126-163 of Volume I. 3. It immediately transpired that there was a deliberate attempt at evading the courts order with a view to relevant information being not made available. 4. The court by its order dated August 30, 1983 gave certain specific directions. Petitioner No. 2 was specifically directed to give further detail of the donations collected by the trust from 1970 till the date of the order. It was clarified so as to leave no one in doubt that the Petitioners shall specify the name of the donor (not branch from which donation was received), the amount of donation, the full name and address of the parties giving the donation and the relation, business commercial or otherwise of the donor to the bank and to further specify the branch through which the donor parties were getting banking services and facilities from the Canara Bank. The Petitioners were also directed to state whether there was any advantageous alteration or modification of the banking services or facilities granted to the donor since the donation as also to indicate and specify the name of each of the officers who were members of the Trust and who facilitated such alteration or modification advantageous to the customers in respect of banking facilities. The name of the officer and his full address was also directed to be stated. The Petitioners were also directed, if possible, to state the motivation for the donation. 5. There was noticeable reluctance on the part of the Petitioners to implement this order or at any rate to avoid compliance with the same. On the last occasion, the Court directed the Petitioners to strictly comply with the aforementioned order. 6. The Petitioners were also directed, if possible, to state the motivation for the donation. 5. There was noticeable reluctance on the part of the Petitioners to implement this order or at any rate to avoid compliance with the same. On the last occasion, the Court directed the Petitioners to strictly comply with the aforementioned order. 6. Yesterday when the matter came up for hearing, a statement running into about 24 pages not signed by any responsible person and not verified by an affidavit was placed on record. We would be perfectly justified in rejecting this spurious document as unworthy of being looked into. Mr. M.K. Ramamurthy repeatedly, though wholly unsuccessfully, tried to persuade us to hold that the statement is in compliance with the orders of this court. A mere glance at the statement would show that it is a futile repetition of a bizzare exercise which resulted in the statement Annexure IV Volume I and by the information supplied by the statement we are in no way wiser. The purpose for calling upon the petitioners to submit the name of each donor was to identify the donor so that a detailed enquiry can be made as to how the officers of the Trust misusing and abusing their petition have procured donations by granting banking facilities to the donors. The additional purpose was also to ascertain whether the donors were coerced into making the so-called donations at the instance of the officers of the Trust so that a detailed enquiry can be undertaken to ascertain the use and misuse and abuse of the office by the members of the trust 7 The Petitioners have been consistently striving to suppress this information from the court. This becomes evident from the fact that even the statement filed yesterday and marked as Volume VI the name of the donor is mentioned without the address or even the city in which the donor was residing or having his place of business. It is not stated what banking facilities the donors obtained since the donation and through which officer. Every covert or overt attempt is made to withhold the identity of the donor to thwart the court to reach the donor so that the shady of the members of the trust in collecting the so-called donations can be unearthed. 8. It is not stated what banking facilities the donors obtained since the donation and through which officer. Every covert or overt attempt is made to withhold the identity of the donor to thwart the court to reach the donor so that the shady of the members of the trust in collecting the so-called donations can be unearthed. 8. Apart from the statement being barren, it is not supported by an affidavit and as it does not appear to have been signed by any responsible officer. We reject it as unworthy of any credence. The result is that till today there is non-compliance with the aforementioned orders of the court. 9. It was made specifically clear that the name of the donor and the address must be clearly specified. Even after a long lapse of more than year and a half since the order, the information is branch wise which was categorically rejected by this Court. The specific instances which remains unexplained are pointed out by Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Canara Bank in his statement annexed to the letter dated August 22, 1984. The statement is taken on record. 10. We propose to give last opportunity to the petitioners to comply with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit. Any attempt at deviance or defiance will unquestionably land to serious consequences which we refrain from specifying at this stage. We record our utter disapproval of this hide and seek game of the Petitioners and we want to leave no one in doubt that they do so was at their own peril. The arms of law are long and strong to reach them and no effort will be spared to unearth their illegal activities if once they are so established, It is not for a moment suggested that we so held. But this escapist attitude of the petitioners have raised strong suspicion in our minds that there is something improper illegal and un-business-like in their conduct disclosing either misuse or abuse of office by the officers of the Canara Bank in collecting a huge amount as donation from the customers of the bank for the purpose of the trust. What is stated is just a warning. 11. We direct that Petitioners shall comply with the orders as hereinabove as indicated within a period of 6 weeks from today. What is stated is just a warning. 11. We direct that Petitioners shall comply with the orders as hereinabove as indicated within a period of 6 weeks from today. The matter shall come up before this Bench after 6 weeks.