Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this petition for drawing contempt for wilful disosbedience of this courts order passed in C. W. J. C. No. 3120 of 1995 (R) on 19-12-1995. 2. The petitioner happens to be the member of Sendra Basjora Motor Pariwahan Sahayog Samity, a Co-operative Society. Various complaints were receieved regarding the management of the Co-operative Society by its managing committee and a petition was filed under Section 27 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 for disolution of the managing committee. That petition filed under Section 41 (1) the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act registered as Supersession Case No. 5/95 and after giving due notice, the matter was heard and the society was suspended under Section 41 (2) of the Act, and a Special Officer was appointed as a Administrator. Against that Supersession order of the Deputy Registrar, an appeal was preferred by the Secretary of the Society under Section 41 (6) of the Act before the Minister of the department, which was registered as Supersession Appeal No. 4/1995. As per the order of the Minister, an enquiry was held in the matter by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, through A. D. M., Law and order and on submission of his report, the Minister concerned had set the order of supersession by order dated 28-9-1995. This was challegned by the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 3120 of 1995 (R). After hearing the petitioner, order was passed on 19-12-1995 disposing of the petition without going into the merits, as it was held that the term of the members an office bearers of the Managing Committee of the society in question had already expired on 31-3-1995 and grace period was also going to expire on 31-12-1995, and as such disposal order was passed in the following terms : "In that view of the matter, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to go into the merits of the case. Since life of the Managing Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of three years plus 9 months and the Administrator has to take over the affairs of the society, I would direct that the steps for holding election of the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee shall be taken by the Administrator." 3. Since life of the Managing Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of three years plus 9 months and the Administrator has to take over the affairs of the society, I would direct that the steps for holding election of the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee shall be taken by the Administrator." 3. The said order was made available to the S. D. O. Dhanbad, who in turn had despatched it to the B. D. O., opposite party No. 5 to abide by the orders of the High Court, but it appears that the B. D. O. had not complied with the orders of this court and after taking opinion from an Advocate of Dhanbad continued with the process of election and conducted the election without reference to Administrator and completed the same. 4. In reply to the show cause, the opposite party No. 5 has categorically stated that the process of election had already started on 21-12-1995, when as the Election Officer he notified the election programme for holding election of office bearers and members of the Co-operative Society including the present Co-operative Society. But the said election process was stayed by the S. D. O. on 3-12-1995 complaint of some persons and the B.D.O. was asked not to proceed with the election process, but after doing enquiry on the complaint, the B. D. O. was again asked by the S. D. O. vide order dated 13-12-1995 to complete the election by 31-12-1995. Accordingly, election programme was notified on 13-12-1995. While he was proceeding with the election, he got High Courts order and he was in a fixed as on one hand, the High Court passed the order to complete the election within the time frame, but some embargo was there in the order itself and for clarifying, he took legal opinion of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, Advocate, Dhanbad, and the said Advocate opined that the High Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the election process when the same has already been started and when the High Court had also asked for completion of election within 31-12-1995, the B. D. O. may proceed with the election process. Accordingly, on the basis of the opinion of the Advocate, he proceeded with the election. 5. Mr. Accordingly, on the basis of the opinion of the Advocate, he proceeded with the election. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is one of the examples how the Bureaucrats aro willfully disobeying the orders of the court. The B. D. O. had no scope to take legal opinion when there was clear direction from this Court regarding conducting the election by the Administrator. The B. D. O. with ulterior motive only to shirk his responsiblity took opinion from an Advocate and to protect his colourful act in disobeying the courts order. 6. Mr. Debi Prasad appearing for and on behalf of the B. D. O., submitted that first of all, the B. D. O. was a party in the original writ petition and there was no clear direction against the B. D. O., who happens to be the Election Officer. His further submission is that there was concealment and suppression from the side of the petitioner regarding starting of the election process already and the matter was never brought into the notice of the court while passing the order on 19-12-1995 in C. W. J. C. No. 3120 of 1995 (R), otherwise such order of conducting of election by the Administrator would not have been passed. His further submission is that the poor B. D. O. was in a fixed as to what to do when the election proceedings were pending before him to be conducted by him and when the High Court had also asked to complete the same, he had to take legal opinion. Mr. Debi Prasad has fairly submitted that the B.D.O. should not have gone to the private Advocate for his opinion and the Advocate concerned also should not have given such opinion. The better course would have been for the B. D. O. to move before this Court for clarification and bringing into the notice that the election process was on under bis direct supervision, But, according to Mr. Prasad, there was no wilful disobedience from the side of the B. D. O. 7. The better course would have been for the B. D. O. to move before this Court for clarification and bringing into the notice that the election process was on under bis direct supervision, But, according to Mr. Prasad, there was no wilful disobedience from the side of the B. D. O. 7. It lis true that the B, D. O. was noli a party in the writ petition and there was no direct direction to him in any way in the order passed in the original writ petition, but when the State of Bihar was party, then it is construed that its officers are also responsible to abide by the orders of this Court and when the order of this mourt was placed before the B. D. O., then he ought not to have proceeded with the election process rather leave it to the discretion of the Administrator. 8. Mr. Prasad submitted that at that time, when the order was passed, there; was no Administrator, but it appears that the Administrator was appointed in supersession case, although the same was set aside by the Minister concerned in appeal which was questioned in the writ petition. So the existence of the Administrator was there and for conducting free election when there was allegation against the office bearers of the Society, this Court with obvious purpose had asked for conducting of election under the direction/supervision, of the administrator but it appears that the B. D. O. has circumvented it. It cannot be said that he had no intention in disobeying the Courts order rather the circumstances show that he was bent upon to conduct the election by himself and as such to obviate the High Courts direction, took opinion of a private Advocate of Dbanbad. Such sort of aiffairs of the State officials cannot be looked into lightly and cannot be let \ out on acceptence of his unconditional apology as tendered in the reply to show cause itself. 9. Technicality of the B. D. O. not being a party in the original writ petition has got no substance. He being the responsible officer and when the order has been brought into his notice, he was duty bound to abide by the same and if there was any ambiguity in his mind, he might have come to the Court for clarification. The action of the B. D, 0. He being the responsible officer and when the order has been brought into his notice, he was duty bound to abide by the same and if there was any ambiguity in his mind, he might have come to the Court for clarification. The action of the B. D, 0. cannot be supported in any way whatsoever. Howevery, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not want to be harsh against the B. D. O. as there is no allegation of previous antecedent of the. officer concerned, but Serious stricture has been passed against the officer concerned to be cautious in future. This must be entered into his service book. This order be 6ent imimediately to S. D. O. 10. The case is disposed of accordingly.