Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.- These two contempt petitions were heard together;, inasmuch as they arise out of an order of stay given by this Court in C.M.P. No. 4677 of 1966 in Writ Petition No. 852 of 1966, of an election to the Amadalavalasa Cooperative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd., Srikakulam District (hereinafter called the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society). In order to determine the question whether any contempt of the orders of this Court Were committed and if so, by whom, it is necessary to narrate the vexed election squabbles in this society. It is therefore convenient to set out first the facts alleged in Contempt Petition. No. 11 of 1966 and subsequently to the other contempt petition. For convenience sake, the petitioner and the respondents will be referred to hereafter as; they are arrayed in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966. The Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society constructed a sugar factory in 1962 with the financial assistance of the State Bank and the Financial Corporation, on the guarantee of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The affairs of the factory-were being managed by a nominated body of Directors, of which the 2nd respondent, B. Rajagopala Rao. M. P. was the Chairman for two successive seasons, namely, 1962-63 and 1963-64. On the allegation that the 2nd respondent committed grave irregularities and utilised the funds of the factory to the tune of several lakhs. for his own benefit, the nominated body was superseded in October, 1964. A Special Officer was appointed by the Government to look after the affairs of the factory for the crushing season 1964-65 onwards. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed a writ Petition No. 1726 of 1964, challenging the order made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 16th October, 1964 in purported exercise of his. powers under section 32 (7) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, appointing a person to manage the affairs of the society for a period of 4 months from 19th October, 1964. The reason given for making this order is that until a decision regarding the applicability of rule 22 is taken by the Government, it is not possible to hold elections of the managing committee, which reason was alleged. to be irrelevant for appointing a person to manage the affairs. The reason given for making this order is that until a decision regarding the applicability of rule 22 is taken by the Government, it is not possible to hold elections of the managing committee, which reason was alleged. to be irrelevant for appointing a person to manage the affairs. Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., dismissed the writ petition holding that it was reasonable to expect the Registrar to wait for some time to recommend and persuade the Government and obtain the final decision as to whether rule 22 should be applied to the instant case or not, and consequently the grounds stated for the impugned order were not extraneous or irrelevant or untenable. The learned Judge also thought that the period of 4 months should be reasonably sufficient to obtain a decision of the Government as to Whether they should apply rule 22 to the society or not and to hold the elections. Against this order, Writ Appeal No. 146 of 1964 was filed, which was disposed of by Manohar Pershad, C.J., and Mirza, J., on 1st February, 1966, because it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant therein that on the recommendation of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Government made rule 22 applicable to this society along with other societies, and as result, there Was nothing more to be decided in the Writ appeal. The Bench however directed the Registrar to conduct the elections as early as possible, but by a date not exceeding 4 months from that date. The 1st respondent, B. Satyanarayana, was appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections to the committee. In pursuance of this direction, the Special Officer drew up a programme of elections, issued notices, fixed the dates for nomination 19th May, 1966, scrutiny on 20th May, 1966, and the election on 30th May, 1966. The 2nd respondent however filed a Writ Petition No. 747 of 1966 on 10th May, 1966 alleging that the Special Officer had not issued notices to 321 members, who were on the rolls of the society continually for the past 5 to 6 years, which omission, he said, was mala fide and was a deliberate attempt to get over the directions of the High Court to hold the elections within 4 months with the object of facilitating anyone of the 321 members to file a writ petition and obtain stay. It was therefore prayed that the Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Special Officer to give 20 days prior notice to those 321 members and hold the elections on the appointed day, i.e., 30th May, 1966. Along with the petition, C.M.P. No. 4395 of 1966 was also filed for interim orders. On 18th May, 1966 as both the parties showed their anxiety to see that the elections were held with in 4 months’ period as directed earlier by the Division Bench of this Court, it was deemed unnecessary to pass any orders in that C.M.P. Thereafter the petitioner in this contempt petition along with four others filed a writ Petition No. 808 of 1966 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the officer in charge not to hold the election on 30th May, 1966 but to hold the same after applying the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and the By-laws of the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society after rectifying the illegalities sworn in the affidavit. The defects pointed out by the petitioners were not confined to the 321 non-cane growing members alone referred to in W.P. No. 747 of 1966, but it was alleged that a large number of over 2,000 persons were not included in the list, that about 200 cane-growing members did not also receive notices for the election and the even the others who received the notices had got them only on 16th May, 1966 at the earliest. It was further averred that these notices showed that the members had to bring the notices with them, which meant that no member could attend or participate in the election unless he received a notice and produced it. A.C.M.P. No. 4598 of 1966 was filed on 23rd May, 1966 for interim relief by way of stay of election but the petition was rejected on 24th May 1966 but with a direction that the Officer-in-charge shall issue notices to the 2,000 and odd persons, if they are qualified for membership and if they have not been served with notices of the date of poll. Three days thereafter, on 27th May, 1966, the petitioner and two others who are also petitioners in W.P. No. 808 of 1966 filed another Writ petition No. 852 of 1966, on the ground that, in spite of the directions of this Court that the Officer-in-charge shall give notices to 2,000 persons, he has not issued any notices and was proceeding With the elections without it. It was submitted that any election held without the statutory notice of clear 20 days Would be invalid as contravening the mandatory provisions. In the C.M.P. No. 4677 of 1966 filed along with the writ petition for staying the elections, Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., made the following order “It is stated that about 2000 voters are being deprived of the vote as the result of non-inclusion of their names in the voters’ list. It is also stated that in spite of direction by this Court to serve notices, no notices have been served so far (27th May, 1966) and even if served they would be illegal, being contrary to rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. Today is 27th,. 28th and 29th are holidays and the elections are fixed on 30th. In these circumstances an interim order may issue directing postponement of the elections by 3 weeks. Notices to be served meanwhile. May be sent by wire to 1st respondent today.” This order was communicated to the Officer-in-charge by telegram as well as by post. The telegram was received by him on 28th May, 1966 at 3 p.m. The petitioner’s Counsel also sent a telegram on 27th May, 1966 to one Challa Narasimham an Advocate at Srikakulam, which was received by the said Narasimham on 28th May, 1966. On 29th May, 1966 a carbon copy of the same was also received by the Advocate at about 7 p.m. where upon the Advocate Went to the sugar factory along With an affidavit sworn by him and sought to file the carbon copy of the order along with the affidavit before the Special Officer (1st respondent in this petition) on the night of 29th May, 1966. The 1st respondent did not receive the same as it Was out of office hours, and asked him to file the same the next day after 7-30 a.m. Accordingly, the said Narasimham along with other contesting candidates of his group went to the factory at about 8 a.m. on 30th May, 1966 and filed the carboncopy of the order of this Court with an affidavit sworn by him. At that time, the rival group led by the 2nd respondent was present along with their Advocate D. Ganapthi Rao. An objection petition which was ready with them, was presented to the Special Officer asking him to conduct the elections to the committee of the society. The 1st respondent wanted some time to take a decision but in the meanwhile he received a copy of the order, dated 27th May, referred to above, by post, whereupon he set out to go to the pandal where the elections were to be held, accompanied by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector of Police, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar of Srikakulam and other police officers to announce the postponement of the meeting of the general body in pursuance of the orders of this Court. By the time he went there were already gathered in the pandal, a large number of voters and public. The 2nd respondent was then making a speech through loud speakers, using very vulgar language against the 1st respondent. On seeing the 1st respondent the 2nd respondent started abusing him in a very vulgar language in Telugu, which bereft of the vulgarity, not fit to be mentioned in the petition Was. to the following effect: “The officer bastard is coming here to announce the postponement of the election. We need not care for the orders of the High Court. This is my kingdom. I am the sole monarch. The Sugar Factory is ours. We have constructed the same. The High Court cannot stop us. Who is the High Court? What authority the High Court has to grant stay ? We are all here. We will conduct the election.” The 2nd respondent also threatened the 1st respondent stating that he will shoot him dead if he approaches the pandal to make the announcement. We have constructed the same. The High Court cannot stop us. Who is the High Court? What authority the High Court has to grant stay ? We are all here. We will conduct the election.” The 2nd respondent also threatened the 1st respondent stating that he will shoot him dead if he approaches the pandal to make the announcement. Meanwhile, Uppada Rajarao, one of the followers of the 2nd respondent, tried to snatch away the copy of the order from the 1st respondent, which Was prevented by the Circle Inspector. Then the 1st respondent along with the police and revenue officials returned back to his office room. There he prepared the notice of adjournment and affixed the same to the notice board of the factory. After the notice was put up, the and respondent along with P. Sangam Naidu, M.L.A. (R. 5), Tammineni Papa Rao M.L.A. (R. 3). Ronanki, Satyanarayana, M.L.A. (R. 4), Pasagada Satyanarayana, ex-M.L.A. (R. 11, since dead), Rokkam Ramamurty Naidu, ex-M.L.A. (R. 10), Pydi Narasimha Apparao, ex-M.L.A., (R. 9) and Nallana. Audinarayana (R. 6) entered the office room and demanded the ballot papers and ballot boxes to be handed over to them. When the 1st respondent refused to hand them over, the and respondent went out and instigated the mob to attack the office of the 1st respondent, abusing him in most indecent and vulgar language. Then Uppala Raja Rao (respondent No. 2 in Contempt Petition No. 23 of 1966) who is also since dead, and another Boddepalli Syamasundara Rao, who is not a respondent in any of the petitions, entered the officer room and took away the ballot paper and the ballot boxes. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent and the members of his group took away the ballot papers and the ballot boxes, and along with the mob of his supporters, began to conduct a mock election. In that mock election the 4th respondent Was said to have been elected as the polling officer and Directors were elected including Challa Narasimham, one of the Directors so elected. Thereafter, Suggu Srinivasa Reddy (R. 7) appeared to have taken the chair and a further-phase of electing the President and the Vice-President was gone through. Except Challa Narasimham, the rest of the persons who were elected as Directors in the mock election, participated. The and respondent was elected the President and the 3rd respondent as the Vice-President. Thereafter, Suggu Srinivasa Reddy (R. 7) appeared to have taken the chair and a further-phase of electing the President and the Vice-President was gone through. Except Challa Narasimham, the rest of the persons who were elected as Directors in the mock election, participated. The and respondent was elected the President and the 3rd respondent as the Vice-President. A statement was got published in the Indian Express dated 4th June, 1966 through B. Narayana Murty, M.L.C. a brother of the 2nd respondent, that elections were conducted. Another statement was issued by the 2nd respondent in the Andhra Prabha Daily Newspaper dated 10th Tune 1966. The petitioner states that the respondents in utter disregard of the orders of this Court conducted the said mock election. The 1st respondent, Special Officer, stated that he had received the telegram on 28th May, 1966 at about 3 p.m. but since the telegram did not contain the words ‘State’ under the head ‘Service instructions’, he wanted to have it confirmed and for that purpose he issued a telegram to the Registrar of Co-operative Socieites at Hyderabad. On 29th, he was waiting for the reply from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies when in the night at about 9 p.m. as stated in the petition Challa Narasimham, Advocate, came to him and requested him to receive the application but as it Was out of office working hours, he asked the Advocate to come the follow ing morning. On 30th May, at about 8-30 a.m. Challa Narasimham filed anaffidavit along With a carbon copy of the High Court’s order, requesting him to postpone the elections. At about 9 a.m. he (the 1st respondent) received a telegram from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that the contents of the telegram of 28th May were correct and that he should act upon it. At 9-45 a.m. he received through tappals the orders of the High Court also. As the time fixed for the general bod meeting was 10 a.m. and the polling was to start at 11 a.m., he immediately went along With the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam and some other police officers to announce to the general body that the general body meeting and the elections are postponed. As the time fixed for the general bod meeting was 10 a.m. and the polling was to start at 11 a.m., he immediately went along With the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam and some other police officers to announce to the general body that the general body meeting and the elections are postponed. The first respondent confirmed the petitioners’ version that when he proceeded to read out the orders of the High Court, Uppada Raiarao snatched away by force the original copy of the order from his hands, whereupon the Inspector of Police who Was standing nearby caught him and returned the papers to him. As the situation Was serious, the Assistant Superintendent of Police advised him to go back to his office room immediately for safety, which he did. On going to the office, he prepared a notice to the effect that the general body meeting as Well as the elections to the committee are postponed as per the High Court’s order, and got it pasted on the notice board. According to him, a large crowd Which Was in an excited and outraged mood came and surrounded his office shouting and demanding for the ballot papers, threatening to kill him. The situation was uncontrollable and the law and order situation appeared to be grave. By then some people were trying to enter his room and they were shouting at the 1st respondent demanding the ballot papers. Foreseeing the danger, he instructed the polling officers Who were in the adjacent room, to invalidate all the ballot papers by removing his name and the seal of the society so that even if they are forcibly taken away" they may not be treated as valid. He further states that in spite of his protests a large crowd entered the rooms where the ballot papers were kept and snatched away the invalid ballot papers and boxes, and the crowd went away. In view of the situation, he had requested the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam to safe, guard his life and the factory premises. He Wanted to contact the Registrar of Cooperative Societies but the telephone lines were cut. He therefore went to Visakhapatnam and after contacting the Special Officer for Co-operative Sugar Factories, proceeded to Hyderabad to apprise the Registrar of the situation. He Wanted to contact the Registrar of Cooperative Societies but the telephone lines were cut. He therefore went to Visakhapatnam and after contacting the Special Officer for Co-operative Sugar Factories, proceeded to Hyderabad to apprise the Registrar of the situation. He averred that none of the persons drafted by him from the Various officers of the Co-operative Department for the purpose of working as polling officers in the proposed elections took part in the so-called elections said to have been conducted by some people after the postponement of the elections and the meeting Was announced by him, nor was any election held by him nor had he authorised any one to hold the elections. There is also no provision of law authorising him to delegate the function of conducting the elections to any one else. From Visakhapatnam he sent a preliminary report to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 31st May, 1966 and immediately on reaching Hyderabad, he reported the facts to the Registrar orally on 1st June, 1966. The 2nd respondent after setting out the history of the previous proceedings, stated that the petitioner had himself filed his nomination which was rejected on scrutiny. The petitioners’ supporters and party men, of whom Challa Narasimham was one, had filed their nominations, some of which were rejected on scrutiny. In those circumstances he stated all of them, including the petitioner and his group, had participated in the programme of elections. In so far as the actual conduct of the meeting is concerned, he says that he attended the meeting at about 9-45 a.m. on 30th May, 1966, that a large number of members of the general body Were restive and angry as even the basic amenities like providing shelters, drinking water etc., Were not provided at the meeting, that the Special Officer was asked a barrage of questions by the members as to these facilities and about his mismanagement of the affairs and as a result, the Special Officer expressed his inability, to conduct the elections and asked the general body to conduct the elections by electing a chairman for that purpose, and left the meeting. The general body thereupon chose R. Satyanarayana, a person who does not belong to either of the rival groups and an M.L.A. belonging to the Swatantra party as the chairman to conduct the elections. He conducted the elections and declared them elected. The general body thereupon chose R. Satyanarayana, a person who does not belong to either of the rival groups and an M.L.A. belonging to the Swatantra party as the chairman to conduct the elections. He conducted the elections and declared them elected. He also conducted the election of the President and Vice-President. After R. Satyanarayana was elected as chairman, the Special Officer called him to his office and handed over the ballot papers, minutes book and the seal of the society. According to him, at no stage of these proceedings the orders of this Court postponing the elections for three Weeks were communicated, to them. As such for their part they have not done anything after the general body met, more than what Challa Narasimham and others of the petitioner’s party have done. The 2nd respondent further states that he and others came to know about the filing of a writ Petition No. 852 of 1966 and of the orders passed by this Court only subsequent to the holding of the elections and that it was wholly false to state that after coming to know of the stay of the elections he began to make propaganda through loudspeakers on jeeps and lorries touring the entire area of operation cavassing that this Court did not pass any stay orders and even if true, the elections need not be stopped and that they Would not be stopped. He does not admit that Challa Narasimham filed a carbon copy of the High Court’s order when they Were present. In fact, the 2nd respondent was not aware of the High Court’s orders at all. He characterises the allegation that he Was making a speech on the loudspeakers using very vulgar language against the 1st respondent and criticising the Court for passing an order of postponement., as mischievous, as he was not aware of the High Court’s orders. The further allegations that the threatened to shoot the 1st respondent if he approached the pandal to make the announcement or that Uppada Rajarao tried to snatch away the copy of the order from the 1st respondent are all false. In fact, according to him (2nd respondent) they Were under the belief that the previous order of the High Court rejecting stay enabled the conducting of elections. In fact, according to him (2nd respondent) they Were under the belief that the previous order of the High Court rejecting stay enabled the conducting of elections. He denied that he entered along With some persons the office room and demanded the ballot papers and ballot boxes to be handed over to them and When the 1st respondent refused, he instigated the mob to attack the office abusing him in most indecent and vulgar language. It is equally false to say-that Uppada Rajarao and B. Syamasundararao entered the office room and took away the ballot papers. After the 1st respondent left the meeting asking the general body to conduct the elections, R. Satyanarayanarao was unanimously elected as chairman to conduct the elections by the general body and thereupon the list respondent called him to his office and handed over the ballot boxes, ballot papers etc. In conclusion, he swore that they all participated in the election under the genuine belief that the general body has got the power to conduct the elections and that there was no intention Whatsoever on their part to disregard the orders of this Court. In these circumstances, he says he is not guilty of contempt of Court. The 3rd respondent supported the affidavit of the and respondent and denied that he accompanied the 2nd respondent and entered the office room and demanded the ballot papers and ballot boxes. The 4th respondent stated he participated in the general body meeting on 30th May, 1966 as a representative of the Co-operative Central Bank and that he does not belong to any of the rival groups contesting the election. He also reiterates the statements made in the affidavit of the 2nd responddent and states that he was not informed of the order of this Court even at 10 A.M. on 30th May, 1966 when at the meeting the special officer expressed his in ability to conduct the elections and asked the general body to conduct them, and left the place. After he was unanimously elected as chairman to conduct the elections, the Special Officer sent for him and handed over the ballot boxes, ballot papers, the minutes book and the seal of the society to him to facilitate the conduct of the elections. After he was unanimously elected as chairman to conduct the elections, the Special Officer sent for him and handed over the ballot boxes, ballot papers, the minutes book and the seal of the society to him to facilitate the conduct of the elections. He stated that he conducted the elections in accordance with the directions of the general body, genuinely believing that the general body had power to conduct the elections. He also states that at no stage of the proceedings the members of the general body including himself was made aware of the orders of the Court. The 5th respondent denies that he had any knowledge of the proceedings taken by the petitioner. He also states that Challa Narasimham never informed him about the stay orders granted by this Court on 27 May, 1966. The order of this Court postponing the elections was not shown to any of the parties. He was not present at the time when it was alleged that Challa Narasimham filed a copy of the High Court’s order before the 1st respondent on 30th May, 1966 at 8 a.m. and so he did not know What happened. The 1st respondent did not even announce on the loudspeaker or mike about the adjournment of the meeting as a result of the High Court’s order of stay. While admitting that he was also one of the directors elected at the mock election, he state that he belong to a different community from that of the 2nd respondent and does not belong to his party, and he has great respect for this Court and that he had contested the election without knowing that this Court granted stay and postponed the holding of the elections; and if he had knowledge of the stay orders, he would not have participated in the elections at all. The 6th respondent also disclaimed knowledge of the orders of this Court He states that the fact that Challa Narasimham is not made a party in the Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966 shows that the addition of parties also is made with an ulterior motive. The 7th and the 8th respondents adopt the affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. The 9th respondent more or less says the same thing as the other respondents, and denies any knowledge of the postponement of the elections by this Court. The 7th and the 8th respondents adopt the affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. The 9th respondent more or less says the same thing as the other respondents, and denies any knowledge of the postponement of the elections by this Court. He is having high blood pressure and therefore is not in a position to move from place to place. He had also an attack of paralysis and Was an in-patient in the K. G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The 10th respondent says that he has not defied any orders of this Court as he was not aware of such orders and he was not a party to the proceedings. If for any reason this Court comes to the conclusion in spite of the facts stated by him that contempt has been committed, he tenders his unconditional apology. The 11th respondent adopted the affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. Contempt Petition No. 23 of 1966 is by the same petitioner against the Advocate D. Ganapathi Rao, the 1st respondent therein, who is alleged to have been present along with Uppada Rajarao, the 2nd respondent therein, who is said to have snatched away the copy of the High Court’s order from the hands of the Special Officer. Uppada Rajarao having died, the application has abated as against him. It is alleged against Ganapathi Rao in this petition that he along with some others signed and filed an application that the elections need not be postponed, in spite of Challa Narasimham, the Advocate of the petitioner, filing an application and an affidavit along with a carbon copy of the High Court’s order postponing the elections. This action of his, it is stated amounts to an express disrespect to the orders of this Court and is tantamount to interfering with its process making him liable for punishment for contempt. In his counter, Ganapathi Rao stated that when the elections were being conducted as directed by this Court, the petitioner and the members, who are in minority, started putting hurdles in the Way of these elections being conducted. As part of their scheme to block the election programme, they filed Writ Petition No. 808 of 1966. He came to know that the High Court had refused to stay the elections and directed that they be held on 30th May, 1966 by its order dated 24th May, 1966. As part of their scheme to block the election programme, they filed Writ Petition No. 808 of 1966. He came to know that the High Court had refused to stay the elections and directed that they be held on 30th May, 1966 by its order dated 24th May, 1966. Having been so informed, he and some other shareholders who are interested in conducting the elections, were under the impression that the elections would go on, oh 30th May, 1966. When he and others of his party came to the general body meeting in pursuance of the notice of the Special Officer, they found that the petitioner and his group were trying to spread rumours that the High Court again stayed the holding of the elections. He thought that once the High Court had refused to grant stay, the High Court would not have granted stay within two or three days. Further he was told that the High Court was sitting only on Tuesdays. In those circumstances, he and some other shareholders filed a petition before the Special Officer that the elections to the managing committee be proceeded with unless they receive any authenticated orders of the High Court. It may be mentioned that after these elections, Writ Petition No. 981 of 1966 was filed by one S. Jagannadham, S. Sanyasi Apparao, petitioner in Contempt Case 11 of 1966 and another on 17th June, 1966 against respondents 1 to 3 for a writ of quo warranto against the 2nd and 3rd respondents to show under what authority they Were functioning; and another Writ Petition No. 1174 of 1966 was filed on 27th July, 1966 by one of the member of the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society for a Writ of mandamus directed against 11 respondents including respondents 2, 3 and 5 to 11 in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966. W.P. Nos. 747, 808 and 852 of 1966 Were heard together by our learned brothers, Kumarayya and Sharfuddin Ahmed, JJ. and a common judgment was delivered on 25th August, 1966. They allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 808 and 852 of 1966 and partly allowed W.P. No. 981 of 1966, W.P. No. 747 of 1966 was dismissed as not pressed. W.P. Nos. 747, 808 and 852 of 1966 Were heard together by our learned brothers, Kumarayya and Sharfuddin Ahmed, JJ. and a common judgment was delivered on 25th August, 1966. They allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 808 and 852 of 1966 and partly allowed W.P. No. 981 of 1966, W.P. No. 747 of 1966 was dismissed as not pressed. So far as W.P. No. 981 of 1966 is concerned, it was held that respondents 2 and 3 in Contempt Case No. 11 of 1966 could not act as President and Vice-President and consequently Were restrained from so acting. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies was directed to call a general meeting for election. W.P. No. 1174 was allowed on 8th September, 1966, by one of us (the Chief Justice) and Venkatesam, J., in the light of the judgment in the batch of writ petitions disposed of by Kumarayya and Sharfuddin Ahmed, JJ. We have merely set out this subsequent history to complete the narrative. The main question in these contempt petitions is whether the respondents knew of the orders of the High Court dated 27th May, 1966 staying the elections to be held on 30th May, 1966 and with that knowledge they prevented respondent No. 1 from implementing the orders of the Court, vilified and scandalised the Court, abused the parties to litigation or otherwise conducted themselves in such a way as to impair the dignity and authority of the Court and/or its orders. There is no doubt that except for respondent No. 1, none of the respondents were parties to Writ Petition No. 852 of 1966 when the interim orders in C.M.P. 4677 of 1966 were passed, though it appears that respondent No. 2 was added as the third respondent in the writ petition on 4th July, 1966. From the affidavit of the 1st respondent it is clear that he received intimation of the stay orders on 28th May, 1966 at3 p.m. and because the word “State” was not given in the telegram under service instructions, he doubted the authenticity of that telegram and immediately referred the matter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to ascertain from the High Court as to the authenticity of those orders. It is also clear beyond doubt that on the 29th at about 9 p.m. Challa Narasimham filed a carbon copy of the High Court’s order along with a petition and affidavit. It is also clear beyond doubt that on the 29th at about 9 p.m. Challa Narasimham filed a carbon copy of the High Court’s order along with a petition and affidavit. But that order and the affidavit were not received on the plea that the office was closed. The Officer however did have notice that there Was a stay order from the High Court. In the affidavit, Challa Narasimham stated that he was one of the candidates for election to the Board of Directors of the Society scheduled to take place on 30th May, 1966 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. that he received a wire from a High Court advocate Sri K. Raghavarao on the morning of 28th May, 1966 intimating that the elections of the Society have been stayed by the High Court and that the order was posted and that just then he received a carbon copy of the order of the High Court with the seal of the High Court signed by the Vacation officer to the effect that the elections are stayed, which order was also filed. It was prayed therefore that in view of the wire and the order the elections cannot be held on 30th May, 1966 but have got to be stayed. At any rate, the next day, at about 8 or 8-30 a.m. the said Challa Narasimham again Went to the office and presented an affidavit and the carbon copy of the order, which it is not denied, was accepted. At that time it appears that the rival group led by the 2nd respondent was present along with their advocate D. Ganapathirao who along With 5 others presented a petition asking the Special Officer to proceed With the elections. The filing of this petition is not denied by D. Ganapathirao. It may be of interest to read that petition to ascertain the attitude taken by him and his party. It reads. “We, the undersigned members came to know that some false propaganda is being made by some of the disgruntled and interested members that elections of the above Society is being stayed and that they have concocted some spurious papers to that effect in order to misguide the general electorate and the election authorities concerned. We hereby bring to your notice that no reliance can be placed upon these spurious papers as they are not relevant and cannot be acted upon. We hereby bring to your notice that no reliance can be placed upon these spurious papers as they are not relevant and cannot be acted upon. They are floating rumours that they have misguided you and made you contact higher authorities at Hyderabad by phone about this propaganda. They are proclaiming that you are interested and anxious in the postponement of elections. We bring to your notice that you should not give scope for such doubts and propaganda as you, as an Election Officer is interested in the fair conduct of elections without giving any credit to this false propaganda. This false propaganda is being made by some of the candidates for the elections and the,ir party people as they have lost hope in the outcome of the result in their favour. We affirm that on enquiry, we came to now from our advocates at Hyderabad that no such orders of stay of elections Were passed by any Court. It is respectfully submitted and brought to your notice that no elections can be stepped unless there are authenticated, valid and proper Court orders specifically directing stay of the elections directly being addressed to the election authority concerned. So we request you to proceed with elections of the society and the general body meeting according to schedule in the best interests of the Society.” This application alleges firstly, that there Was a propaganda that the elections of the society are stayed, for which purpose spurious papers have been concocted; secondly, that they affirm that on enquiry they came to know that no such orders were passed by any Court; and thirdly that unless proper authenticated Court Orders are addressed directly to the Election authority, elections cannot be stayed. There is little doubt that at the time when the affidavit and stamped carbon copy of the High Court’s order were filed by Challa Narasimham before the 1st respondent, Ganapathirao and others belonging to the 2nd Respondent’s party protested that those papers were spurious and concocted and that at any rate unless the order was received directly by the Special Officer, 1st respondent, he should not act on it. To Ganapathirao, who is a lawyer, it should be obvious that a carbon copy of the order of the High Court with its seal, whether sent to the Election Authority directly by the High Court or presented before him by some other person in which the Election Authority is directed to stay the elections, was as much binding as any order which is directly received by him; and to say that such an order was concocted or a spurious order and ought not to be acted upon was an attitude deliberately adopted with a view to preventing the 1st respondent from giving effect to it or from staying the elections. It is apparent that subsequent to the filing of the carbon copy, the 1st respondent himself received not only a telegram from the Registrar, but the order of the High Court addressed to him and when he Went to announce the postponement of the general body meeting and stay elections, he was prevented from announcing it by the 2nd respondent, who on all accounts, to put it mildly, took up a hostile and threatening attitude towards the 1st respondent, and one of his party men Uppada Rajarao tried to snatch away the order of the High Court, which was prevented by one of the police officers. The report given immediately by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector was summoned, but the Government Pleader claimed privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act, though he offered to file affidavits of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police as to what took place on that day. After the affidavits of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police were filed, he withdrew his objections, inasmuch as there was then no need to claim privilege to a report which Was in all respects similar to the contents of the affidavit of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The affidavits of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police affirm the 1st respondent’s version that after he received the orders of the High Court at about 9-30 a.m. the 1st respondent along with the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police proceeded to the pandal to announce the postponement of the elections in view of the stay orders of the High Court, but they were prevented from doing so. According to the Revenue Divisional Officer, by the time they reached the venue, the 2nd respondent was addressing the gathering. As soon as he (2nd respondent) saw them he came to them and began talking in an excited mood that the elections should be conducted, that the stay orders Were not addressed to the Returning Officer, but only to the officer-in-charge and that the officer-in-charge has joined hands with his opposite group. The officer-in-charge was encircled by the mob and one of the persons has actually tried to snatch away the stay orders from the pocket of the cfficer-in-charge. The officer-in-charge was safely taken to the factory office by the police. He further states that he then called the 2nd respondent aside and apprised him that the stay orders were actually received by the officer-in-charge and hence the elections could not be conducted. But he insisted that the boxes and papers may be given to them so that they could conduct, the elections. The Assistant Superintendent of Police also confirms this, though he does not speak of the Revenue Divisional Officer taking the 2nd respondent aside or as to what he has stated. There is in our view no discrepancy in this omission of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, because in the situation in which they were placed, the Assistant Superintendent of Police may not have noticed what the Revenue Divisional Officer was doing, because his attention was fixed mostly to the Law and Order situation and in taking to a safe place the Special Officer, against whom the crowd was furious. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent in reply to the statements contained in the affidavits of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police, he stated that the affidavit is the direct off-shoot of the political bickerings consequent on his openly condemning the present Chief Minister and the group led by him. He further states that actually sometime before the elections to the Provincial Congress Election Committee took place, the Chief Minister called him to his residence and asked him for support and in that connection threatened him saying that there were, contempt and other proceedings pending in the Court which Will largely depend upon the evidence which his officers had to give. He Went on to narrate that in the district of Srikakulam he (the 2nd respondent) had not only "Worked against the Chief Minister and his group but he was also the leader of the people who are opposed to him and it is equally well-known that his opponents in the district like the petitioner and the present Chairman of the Zilla Parishad, G. Sriramulu Naidu, and others and the followers of the Chief Ministers group. He also stated that after the Pradesh Congress Election Committee elections, a blanket order had been made to investigate into the affairs of all the co-operative societies with which he happened to be connected. It is further stated that at the time of filing of the contempt petition, there was no mention of the existence of any report of the Sub divisional Magistrate and that the officer-in-charge had not stated any word about the Sub divisional Magistrate speaking to him or his addressing the meeting. He denies that the Revenue Divisional Officer had either come to him or spoken to him apprising him of the receipt of the stay order and that it is false to say that he was present at the gathering. We are not concerned with the political bickerings between the 2nd respondent and the Chief Minister nor of the veiled threats alleged to have been made by the latter. All that we are concerned with is whether on the day in question the 2nd respondent knew of the orders of the Court and acted in the manner alleged which would constitute contempt of this Court’s orders. We have seen the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30th May, 1966 and the receipt of the same on 1st June, 1966 bearing the Collector’s seal. We cannot presume on vague innuendos, irregularity or concoction of official acts. From the testimony of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police, who have no manner of interest, the following facts are established beyond doubt or dispute, viz.: (1) On 30th May, 1966, the 1st respondent did not; while expressing his inability to conduct the elections, ask the general body to elect a chainman for that purpose; nor did he attend the meeting or leave the meeting (2) Ganapathi Rao and others were aware of the orders of the High Court and had characterised them as spurious and concocted documents. He tried to prevail on the Special Officer not to act upon them even if they Were authentic, because they Were not received by him directly from the High Court. (3) When the Special Officer tried to announce the postponing of the elections, the 2nd respondent and others prevented him from doing so and one of the party-men, the deceased Uppada Rajarao, even tried to snatch the order of the High Court from the 1st respondent. (4) Respondent No. 2 was informed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the orders were in fact received from the High Court staying the elections and that the elections could not be conducted. (5) In spite of being so informed, the 2nd respondent and others conducted themselves in such a way that the Revenue Divitional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police apprehended danger to the safety of the 1st respondent Who had to be conducted back to the office to ensure his safety; and (6) The 1st respondent after he went back to the office, put up a notice to say that the elections were postponed under the directions of the High Court. It is alleged that in spite of this notice, respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 (respondent No. 11 having died) entered the office and demanded the ballot papers and ballot boxes and When the 1st respondent refused to hand them over, the 2nd respondent went out and instigated the mob to attack the office of the 1st respondent and two of them Went into the office and took away the ballot boxes in the circumstances set out above. No doubt the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Police while confirming this incident generally and while stating that a large mob had collected, outside the office of the 1st respondent, have not named any of the persons specifically. The statement of the 4th respondent that the Special Officer asked him to take the ballot papers and ballot boxes, etc., is fake and untrue. In view of the intense feelings of hostility between the two parties, We Would not be justified in accepting the version of the petitioner implicating respondents 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 without corroboration. The statement of the 4th respondent that the Special Officer asked him to take the ballot papers and ballot boxes, etc., is fake and untrue. In view of the intense feelings of hostility between the two parties, We Would not be justified in accepting the version of the petitioner implicating respondents 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 without corroboration. But in so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, there is no doubt that he was elected as the chairman and was ore of the persons who had asked for the ballot boxes, etc., in writing and took them away with the assistance and intimidation of a large crowd threatening to enter the office. Thereafter elections were conducted contrary to the orders of the High Court. The above conclusions establish without doubt that respondents 2 and 4 in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966 and the 1st respondent, Ganapathi Rao in Contempt Petition No. 23 of 1966 have clearly behaved and conducted themselves in a manner as to bring the authority or administration of law into disrespect or disregard, affect the dignity and bring down the prestige of the High Court. The persons who have so conducted themselves are all responsible persons; the 2nd respondent is a Member of Parliament, the 4th respondent is an M.L.A., and Ganapathi Rao is an advocate... .two of whom are concerned with law making while one of them in the vindication of law and its due process-none of whom at any rate are expected to be engaged in breaking the law. It is contended by Mr. Chowdary that none of the above persons are parties to the writ petition and cannot therefore be said to have committed contempt of an order which is not addressed to them or which does not prohibit them from conducting the elections. Secondly he contends that when the 1st respondent, to whom the order was addressed, has obeyed the order and has not conducted the elections, and has therefore not committed any contempt of that order, the others who are not parties to the Writ petition and to whom the order is not addressed could not have abetted him. We cannot accept either of these contentions as having any validity. We cannot accept either of these contentions as having any validity. There is a difference between prohibitory orders preventing a person from doing a particular thing and positive orders directing a person to do certain things or to act in a certain Way . In the former case, the contempt of Court’s orders is not merely confined to the persons to whom these orders are addressed. Every person who, With the knowledge of those orders, prevents any person from giving effect to them or prevents or obstructs the execution of those orders or acts in contravention of those orders, commits contempt. It is not necessary that the prohibitory orders should have been served upon the party against whom they have been granted nor is it necessary to direct third parties to desist from interfering with the execution of prohibitory orders. It is sufficient if they know and act contrary to them. Different considerations however prevail in the case of positive orders. But it is not necessary to consider in what circumstances a person commits contempt of such orders, as in this case the order was a prohibitory order inasmuch as it directed the officer-in-charge to postpone the election by three weeks, which is a direction not to hold the election scheduled to be held on 30th May, 1966 but to postpone it for three weeks. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh1, were considering a contention that in the absence of an official communication of the order, the Sub-divisional Officer and the Naib Tahsildar were justified in not acting on what they came to know from interested parties and their advocate. It was further contended in that case that before wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court could be imputed against the appellants, it was legally essential that the order should be officially communicated or served on the appellants and in the absence of such communication or service, the proceeding for contempt must fail. Both these contentions were negatived by S. K. Das, J., delivering the judgment of the majority of himself and Subba Rao, J., (as he then was). Both these contentions were negatived by S. K. Das, J., delivering the judgment of the majority of himself and Subba Rao, J., (as he then was). After referring to the legal position succinctly put by Oswald, his Lorsdhip stated that the order in that case, staying delivery of possession, was a prohibitory order and if the appellants had known that the High Court had stayed delivery of possession till 23rd May, 1958, it was undoubtedly the duty of the appellants to carry out that order and that the appellants could not, in their view, takeup the plea that as the order had not been officially communicated to them, they were at liberty to ignore it. Dealing with the several decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants, it was observed at page "In these decisions it was held that it was necessary to have the order properly served before changing a person with disobdience of it. We do not think that those decisions are in point, because We are dealing with a prohibitory order and in the matter of a prohibitory order it is well settled that it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted in order to justify committal for breach of such an order, provided it is proved that the person complained against had notice of the order aliunde." Nor is the instant case a case where the other respondents can be said to have aided and abetted the 1st respondent and consequently that line of cases such as those dealt with in S.N.Bannerajee v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd.1, can be said to be attracted. In that case, it Was held that these was no evidence that the Government had supported the Kalyanpur Company in acting contrary to the orders nor did they commit any breach of the injunction. In those circumstances, their Lordships held that there can be no question of aiding or abetting the Government in contravening the order of injunction. It was not a case where third persons had, with knowledge of a prohibitory order, obstructed or prevented the person to whom the prohibitory order was addressed, from giving effect to it. In those circumstances, their Lordships held that there can be no question of aiding or abetting the Government in contravening the order of injunction. It was not a case where third persons had, with knowledge of a prohibitory order, obstructed or prevented the person to whom the prohibitory order was addressed, from giving effect to it. Their Lordships cited the cases of Avory v. Andrews2, and Seaward v. Paterson3, as cases which limit the offence of contempt by a person not a party to the injunction to cases where they aid and abet the party enjoined in its breach. In the former case, where in contravention of an injunction restraining certain trustees from dividing1 £ 2,000 amongst the members of the society, the new trustees who were appointed on the retirement of the old trustees, carried into effect the fresh resolution of the society to distribute the money. At the time of passing of the resolution the old trustees were present. It was held that the new trustees as well as the old trustees committed contenmpt. Kay, J., said at page 280: "Now I cannot allow that state of things to exist. It is very necessary that the order of this Court should be observed implicitly; and if people are so foolish as to imagine, that they can in this way by a ruse avoid and get rid of an order "this Court, it is time that this delusion should be put an end to." In Seaward v. Paterson3, it was held that a Court has undoubted jurisdiction to commit for contempt a person not included in an injunction or a party to the action who, knowing of the injunction, aids and abets a defendant in committing a breach of it. These cases do not exclude the case of third parties who with, knowledge of the prohibitory order, act independently of the persons to whom the order is addressed, in contravening it and obstructing him from carrying out the orders of the Court. Even though in such circumstances the party prohibited does not in fact act contrary to it, the others do. Even though in such circumstances the party prohibited does not in fact act contrary to it, the others do. In Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B.K. Sen4, Subbarao,J., (as he then was) observed at page 643: "........it is settled law that a person Will be guilty of contempt of Court, if the act done by him is intended or calculated of likely to interfere with the course of Justice." In Official Assignee, Madras v. Suryakanthammal5, where the insolvent’s wife and son had deliberately obstructed the lawful order of the Court and did so at the instigation of the insolvent, who was required to vacate the premises on or before the 7th of May, 1937, it was held that the Court has power not only to commit an insolvent who wilfully obstructed the Court but also has inherent power to commit a person who with Ml knowledge deliberately obstructs the lawful order of the Court in this behalf. It appears that the insolvent after having vacated the upper floor in accordance with the directions of the Court, installed his wife, mother and son in the rooms downstair. The Official Assignee having complained of this fact in a report to the Court, Wadsworth, J., held that the insolvent Was playing with the Court and gave him 24 hours to vacate the premises, but he failed to comply with that order, and on 20th July, 1937, he Was committed and sent to jail for two weeks for contempt of Court. The insolvent appealed but his appeal was dismissed on 27th July, 1937. On 30th July, 1937, the Official Assignee presented a petition to the learned Judge stating that the insolvent’s wife and others were in possession of the house as agents of the insolvent and asked for an order of the Court directing the bailiff to remove them from the premises. An advocate appeared on behalf of the wife and son and asked for time Which Was given, and within that time an affidavit was filed by the wife in which it Was alleged that there had been an agreement between her and Lakshmi Ammal under which she was to be allowed to reside in the house until a sum of Rs. 3,000 which she alleged she had advanced to Lakshmi Ammal, had been repaid. 3,000 which she alleged she had advanced to Lakshmi Ammal, had been repaid. The learned Judge did not believe this story and in his order stated that he had no doubt that the wife was acting at the instigation of the husband but he had no power to commit her for contempt of Court. It is in appeal against that order that Leach, C.J., delivering the Judgment of the Bench consisting of himself and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., held as stated above. Citing the case of Seaward V. Paterson1, Lach, C.J., observed at page 928: “There can be no doubt in this case that the insolvent’s wife and his son are deliberately obstructing a lawful order of the Court and are doing so at the instigation of the insolvent. The son who is respondent 2 in this appeal is not mentioned in the learned Judge’s order, but he is exactly in the same position as his mother and has relied on his mother’s affidavit. As both respondents have with full knowledge of the position acted in deliberate defiance of the Court’s order, I am of opinion that they are liable to be committed for contempt.” In Marshall v. Grdndhi Venkataratnam2, the sale took place before the injunction order was received and it was also not proved that Marshall did anything contrary to the injunction in disposing of, selling or dealing with the goods. Several cases have been cited which are not germane and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and,.therefore, we have not referred to them. The basis underlying the principle upon which contempt of Court is said to be committed is, as stated in Rex v. Grey3, the tendency to poison the fountain of justice, to create distrust and destroy the confidence of the people in the Courts which are the protectors of their rights and liberties. The test in exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to commit a person for contempt should be Whether it is necessary for the preservation of the dignity of the Court or for the purpose of administration of justice, and should be exercised in very clear cases and with the utmost restraint and caution. The test in exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to commit a person for contempt should be Whether it is necessary for the preservation of the dignity of the Court or for the purpose of administration of justice, and should be exercised in very clear cases and with the utmost restraint and caution. As we have stated, where prohibitory orders have been issued to a particular person not to do a particular act, whether that person receives the order or not, as long as he has knowledge, of even otherwise if persons who are not parties but have knowledge of those orders act in contravention of the orders passed, or obstruct or prevent persons from complying with those orders, or behave in a scandalous manner as to bring down the respect and regard for the administration of law or affect the dignity and prestige of the Court, or generally conduct themselves in a manner which is intended to interfere with the course of justice or is deliberately designed to be little or bring down the reputation of the Court, they will be guilty of contempt and this Court has inherent jurisdiction to commit them and punish them. In this case respondents 2 and 4 and the 1st respondent in Contempt Petition No. 23 of 1966 viz., Ganapathi Rao, have committed contempt of Court in that they, with the knowledge that the High Court had passed orders postponing the elections, not only prevented the 1st respondent from announcing in the general meeting that the elections Were postponed under the orders of the High Court, but themselves conducted the elections contrary to those orders and have behaved in 2. manner1 tending to bring the orders of the Court into disrespect, lower its prestige and interfere with the course of justice. Accordingly, We convict them of contempt. We have anxiously considered the punishment to be awarded. manner1 tending to bring the orders of the Court into disrespect, lower its prestige and interfere with the course of justice. Accordingly, We convict them of contempt. We have anxiously considered the punishment to be awarded. While the conduct of the respondents is such as would have called for a severe punishment, in view of the fact that the C.M.P. No. 4598 of 1966 filed by the petitioner on 23rd May, 1966 m W.P. No. 808 of 1966 to stay the election was rejected on 24th May, 1966, the subsequent stay issued on 27th May, 1966 given by the Judge at his house, regarding which the advocates of respondents 2 and 4 at Hyderabad could not possibly give definite information as the 28th and 29th of May happened to be holidays for the High Court, must have come as a surprise. To add to this, the Vacillating attitude of the 1st respondent till an hour before the elections, adopted probably due to the insistence of the one side led by the Chairman, Zilla Parishad asserting that there Was a stay order and the other led by the 2nd respondent and his party saying that there was no stay, led to great excitement leading to a sense of frustration and loss of face on being informed that an order staying the elections was in tact passed and received. These circumstances can be taken into consideration in awarding a sentence of fine. We accordingly direct each of the respondents, viz-, respondent 2and 4 and Ganapathi Rao (1st respondent in Contempt Petition No. 23 of 1966) to pay fine of Rs. 500 within two Weeks from today and in default they shall undergo one a month’s simple imprisonment. They are also directed to pay Rs. 50 each as costs of these petitions. Contempt Case No. 19 of 1966. We have set out in Contempt Case Nos. 11 and 23 of 1966 in detail the facts leading to the conduct of the elections contrary to the orders of this Court issued on 27th May, 1966, postponing the elections scheduled to be held on 30th May, 1966, for a period of three Weeks and the averments in the counters of the respective respondents. 11 and 23 of 1966 in detail the facts leading to the conduct of the elections contrary to the orders of this Court issued on 27th May, 1966, postponing the elections scheduled to be held on 30th May, 1966, for a period of three Weeks and the averments in the counters of the respective respondents. This petition is by one of the members of the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society, against (1) the Special Officer, (2) the petitioner in Contempt Petitions No;.11 and 23 of 1966, (3) Sima Jagannadham, M.L.A. (4) Challa Narasimham, the advocate, and (5) Andhvarapu Tavitayya, M.L.A. It is alleged that respondents 2 to 5 and their supporters were proclaiming that the High Court had granted stay of the elections and so no elections would be held and at the same time they were mustering their supporters and ensuring their presence on that day. They sought to use the elections to further their personal ends and when it suited their interests to disobey it, they persuaded the members present to go ahead with the elections and also participated therein and there by committed contempt of the Court’s orders. Similarly it is stated that respondent No. 1, a responsible officer to whom the stay orders Were addressed, instead of immediately publishing this fact by torn torn and by printed notices, simply bided his time so as to enable respondents 2 to 5 to guage their strength and even after the members were assembled, he did not care to inform them about the contents of the High Court’s order but remained in his office, and handed over the ballot papers without which the elections could not be held. By his acts of omissions and commissions, he abetted and facilitated the violation of the High Court’s order and his conduct discloses conspicuous disrespect to the orders of the High Court. The 1st respondent’s counter is similar to the one filed in the other two contempt petitions, judgment in which We have just now pronounced. It is therefore unnecessary to again refer to it. We have already held that the 1st respondent has not committed any contempt of the orders of the Court. Respondents 2 to 5 have denied that they have participated in the election, and there is nothing stated in this petition which inclines us to hold otherwise. It is therefore unnecessary to again refer to it. We have already held that the 1st respondent has not committed any contempt of the orders of the Court. Respondents 2 to 5 have denied that they have participated in the election, and there is nothing stated in this petition which inclines us to hold otherwise. In so far as respondents 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, they averred that they met the returning officer and filed copies of the stay order along with an affidavit of the third respondent on the 29th itself" and when they were asked to file the same the next morning, they did so at 8-30 a.m. on 30th May, 1966. Respondent 5 stated that he was not present at Amadalavalasa on 30th May, 1966 and he Was not aware of what happened in the meeting. This contempt petition Was filed in July, 1966 as a counterblast at the instance of B. Rajagopalrao (2nd respondent in Contempt Petitions Nos. 11 and 23 of 1966)and that it was not bona fide is evident from the fact that it was filed on 27th July, 1966 nearly 2 months after the alleged contempt. We are satisfied that this: petition has no substance. At any rate, there is no evidence that any of these persons took part in the elections or canvassed support for themselves after the stay orders were received. These proceedings are accordingly dropped and the petition. is dismissed with costs of each of the respondents, which are fixed at Rs. 25 each. G.S.M. ----- Petition No. 19 dismissed. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 in Petition No. 11 of 1966 and Respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 23 of 1966found guilty of contempt.