JUDGMENT- V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner, Ahmednagar Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Bank"), has filed this contempt petition alleging that the respondent No. 4, Mr. D.S. Naik, acting as District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Registrar"), passed the orders dated 4-9-1998, 26-10-1998, 24-11-1998, 19-1-1999 and 17-2-1999, and the respondent No. 5, acting as Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik, passed order dated 21-12-1998 and thereby committed criminal contempt of this Court because the said orders were passed in contravention to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that they be punished for Criminal Contempt. 2.Before going to the merits of the case, it will be proper to give the background. Mr. Sidheshwar Gangadhar Dharmadhikari made on application to the Bank on 16-1-1981, that he be made member of the Bank. Till 1998, no decision was taken by the Bank on this application of Mr. Dharmadhikari. Therefore, he filed a petition under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The application was allowed on 30-9-1988 by the Deputy Registrar who directed the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member. 3.The Bank then presented Revision Application No. 186/88 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Joint Registrar"). On 19-11-1990, the revision was dismissed. The Bank, thereafter filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble Minister of State, Co-operative Societies, against the orders passed by the two authorities. In the said revision petition, the Hon'ble Minister, by his order dated 19-1-1991, granted interim stay to the orders passed by the said two authorities. 4.Mr. Dharmadhikari then filed Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 in this Court and the learned Single Judge passed interim stay order on 10-11-1997 and the said stay order was confirmed subsequently by the order dated 24-6-1998. 5.It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of such stay order issued by this Court, the respondent No. 4 first issued the notice dated 4-9-1998 calling upon the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank, within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, and further informed that otherwise action would be taken against the Bank, as per provisions of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank, within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, and further informed that otherwise action would be taken against the Bank, as per provisions of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 6.The petitioner replied the said notice on 8-9-1998 and brought it to the notice of the respondent No. 4, that because of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, Mr. Dharmadhikari cannot be made member of the Bank and, therefore, no further action be taken against the Bank. Copy of the order passed by the Court was also enclosed with the reply. 7.The respondent No. 4 then passed the order dated 26-10-1998 directing the Bank to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank with effect from 30-9-1998 and also directed to comply with the said order within 15 days and to report. The Bank then again informed the respondent No. 4, by its letter dated 3-11-1998, that the order passed by the respondent No. 4 on 26-10-1998 could not be implemented because of the stay order in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 passed by the High Court and requested that the order dated 26-10-1998 be withdrawn. 8.The respondent No. 4 by letter dated 27-11-1998 informed the Bank that the order dated 26-10-1998 cannot be withdrawn and further informed that a penal action would be taken against the Bank, if the orders were not complied with. 9.The Bank thereafter filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar, being Revision Application No. NGR/R/6/98 and challenged the order dated 26-10-1998. 10.The respondent No. 4 then on 19-1-1999 passed the order that the Bank had informed the respondent No. 4, that revision application was filed on 8-12-1998 against the order dated 26-10-1998 before the Joint Registrar. However, till 19-1-1999, no stay order was received from the office of Joint Registrar, with respect to order dated 26-10-1998 and the Bank had failed to comply with the order dated 26-10-1998. 11.So, the respondent No. 4 issued notice as to why penalty at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day till the implementation of the order dated 26-10-1998 be not imposed on the Bank as per provisions of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 11.So, the respondent No. 4 issued notice as to why penalty at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day till the implementation of the order dated 26-10-1998 be not imposed on the Bank as per provisions of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Thereafter, on 17-2-1999, the respondent No. 4 communicated order dated 14-2-1999 to the Bank which inter alia directed the Bank to pay the penalty at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day from 19-1-1999 as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for non-compliance of the order dated 26-10-1998. 12.It appears that meanwhile, the respondent No. 5 passed the order dated 21-12-1998 in the revision filed by the Bank against the order dated 26-10-1998 and held the order dated 26-10-1998 in abeyance, and he further directed the Bank to seek instructions from the High Court so far as implementation of the order of the High Court. The petitioner has contended that the direction given by the respondent No. 5 in the order dated 21-12-1998 to the Bank, that the Bank should seek further instructions from this Court amounts to contempt of Court. 13.The respondent No. 4, Mr. Naik, was holding the post of District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar, during the relevant time and, therefore, he is also in his official capacity as respondent No. 3 before this Court. While the respondent No. 5, Mr. Ghule, was holding the post of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik. So he is also in his official capacity as respondent No. 2 before this Court. Both these respondents have filed their affidavits in reply. 14.Before going to the stand taken by them in the respective affidavits, at the outset, we would like to state that the contention of the petitioner, that the direction issued by the respondent No. 5 in his order dated 21-12-1998, that the Bank should seek instructions from the Hon'ble High Court, for the implementation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court cannot amount to contempt of Court. A revision was filed against the order dated 26-10-1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar. That order was kept in abeyance by the Joint Registrar. A revision was filed against the order dated 26-10-1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar. That order was kept in abeyance by the Joint Registrar. As the dispute was with respect to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, the Joint Registrar directed the Bank to obtain clarification from the High Court regarding the order. 15.No doubt, the Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar were parties to the said writ petition and they also could have moved this Court for clarification regarding the order of stay. But asking the revision petitioner to seek instructions or clarification of the order from the Court which passed the order, cannot be interference or obstruction in the administration of justice or in any judicial process. It clearly appears that the order passed by the Joint Registrar does not fall under the definition of Criminal Contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent No. 2 i.e. respondent No. 5 is unnecessarily implicated in this case by the petitioner. 16.The respondent No. 4, Mr. Naik, in his affidavit, has tendered unconditional apology and he has also taken stand that the petition in the present form is not at all maintainable because it is not complying the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner has not obtained consent in writing of the Advocate General before filing this petition, as required under Clause "b" of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 17.The respondent No. 4 has further contended that he was under the impression that the order dated 10-11-1997 which was further confirmed on 24-6-1998 by the High Court, in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, amounted to giving stay to the interim stay order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in the revision filed by the Bank and, therefore, he issued further order to the Bank on 26-10-1998 to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank. So, the order passed by him is a bona fide action on his part. There was no intention to commit Contempt of Court and there was no intention to cause breach of stay order passed by this Court. Dharmadhikari as member of the Bank. So, the order passed by him is a bona fide action on his part. There was no intention to commit Contempt of Court and there was no intention to cause breach of stay order passed by this Court. 18.The respondent No. 4 has further contended that the order dated 21-12-1998 passed by the Joint Registrar, keeping in abeyance the order dated 26-10-1998 passed by him, was received by him on 17-1-1999 and, therefore, meanwhile he had passed other orders. However, as the order dated 26-10-1998 is kept in abeyance by the Joint Registrar, there is no question of implementation of the order dated 26-10-1998 and the consequential order of penalty passed by him on 15-2-1999. As immediate action is taken with respect to those orders passed by him, it is abundant clear that he has not committed Contempt of Court or disobeyed the order passed by the High Court. So, it is the stand of the respondent No. 4, that he has not committed any Contempt of Court. 19.So far as the maintainability of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petition is filed by resorting to the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, as well as, provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He has further argued that the power which is vested in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is not controlled by the procedure laid down under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and therefore, when it is brought to the notice of the High Court that criminal contempt is committed by any person, without resorting to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, High Court can suo motu take action. 20.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, be considered as a petition placed before the High Court bringing to the notice of the High Court, the criminal contempt committed by the respondents and suo motu action be taken against the respondents, either as per the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 21.Now, it is well settled law that the powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India are not curtailed by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the question here is whether this petition can be treated as a petition giving information to the High Court for proceeding under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or for proceeding suo motu under sub-section (1) of section 15 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 22.Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, argued that the petitioner here has not merely placed information before the High Court, for the High Court to take suo motu action against the respondents for Contempt of Court. He has filed regular petition in the form of Criminal Application with all technical compliance of the High Court rules. Then the matter was placed before the Division Bench and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner, the notice is issued. Thus, in all respects, this is a petition under section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, without consent of the Advocate General and, therefore, it is not maintainable. 23.For this purpose, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon judgment of this Court, in the case of (Vishwanath Ramkrishna Rajwade v. Shri Cordeiro, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay another)1, 1976 U.C.R. (Bom.) 358 especially the following observations : "When material is merely supplied to the High Court and if the Judges read that material get the impression from the material itself that it is in the public interest to take suo motu action, they will do so. When, however, the material does not so obviously disclose an offence, but an argument is required to be made at the Bar, which leads to the issue of a notice, the private party has chosen a wrong procedure in applying to the Court. What is contemplated by the Act is that a private party, who wants to obtain orders in contempt matter must obtain consent in writing of the Advocate General and not do approach the Court directly." 24.In the present matter, the petitioner has filed regular Criminal Application. What is contemplated by the Act is that a private party, who wants to obtain orders in contempt matter must obtain consent in writing of the Advocate General and not do approach the Court directly." 24.In the present matter, the petitioner has filed regular Criminal Application. Though there is reference to Articles 215 of the Constitution of India, and, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, it is nowhere prayed in the petition, that suo motu action be taken against the respondents for criminal contempt. As per the contentions of the petitioner, the condemners are Mr. Naik and Mr. Ghule. But they are not shown in that capacity. They are shown as the respondents. Furthermore, two officers by their official designations are also shown as respondents. So, in no way, the present petition can be treated as material supplied to the High Court for taking suo motu action. It is a petition under section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No previous consent of the Advocate General was obtained. Therefore, petition in the present from is not maintainable. 25.Only at the time of hearing of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mantri, argued that the Court has ample powers, both, under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to take suo motu action against the contemners and suo motu action be taken against the respondents. However, we do not think that the petitioner now can change its stand and seek for suo motu action when the petitioner comes to know that the petition, as it is, is not maintainable. 26.This question also has to be looked into from another angle. Whether there are circumstances for this Court to take suo motu action against the two respondents for criminal contempt. The respondent No. 4, Mr. Naik, has pleaded that he thought that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 had stayed the order of stay passed by the Hon'ble Minister in the revision pending before the Hon'ble Minister and, therefore, he issued the order dated 26-10-1998. The text of the order passed by this Court on 10-11-1997 which was later on confirmed on 24-6-1998 is as follows:- "Heard Shri K.G. Gawali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri D.V. Tele, learned A.G.P. for State. Rule returnable after Christmas Vacation. The text of the order passed by this Court on 10-11-1997 which was later on confirmed on 24-6-1998 is as follows:- "Heard Shri K.G. Gawali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri D.V. Tele, learned A.G.P. for State. Rule returnable after Christmas Vacation. In the meanwhile, ad interim stay in respect of the proceeding pending on the file of the respondent No. 1, Minister Revision No. 279/844/91, dated 4th May 1991." 27.The record and proceeding of Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 was called for perusal in this matter. The petitioner in the said writ petition, Mr. Sidheshwar Gangadhar Dharmadhikari, raised the ground that when one revision was filed by the Bank before the Joint Registrar, second revision before the Minister was not maintainable and he, therefore, prayed that it be held accordingly. He also prayed that the Bank be directed to admit him as member of the Bank. By way of interim relief, he sought the order, that the proceeding pending before the Minister be stayed. So basically, the writ petition was filed challenging the maintainability of second revision under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 28.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Hon'ble Minister had not passed any order on 4th May 1991. So, there is no question of interpreting the order passed by the High Court, that the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, in the revision petition, was stayed by this Court in the writ petition by way of interim relief. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a misleading stand is taken by the respondent. However, it appears that the order of stay was passed by the Hon'ble Minister earlier and it was communicated to the Bank on 4-5-1991 and, therefore, there is the reference to the date 4-5-1991 in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. So, in a way, it may be said that there was some ground for the respondent No. 4 to interpret the order of the High Court in the said manner. 29.No doubt, the respondent No. 4 should not have indulged any interpretation of the order passed by this Court, especially when the Bank had raised contention that because of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, the respondent No. 4 had no authority to pass any order, to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member. 29.No doubt, the respondent No. 4 should not have indulged any interpretation of the order passed by this Court, especially when the Bank had raised contention that because of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997, the respondent No. 4 had no authority to pass any order, to admit Mr. Dharmadhikari as member. The respondent No. 4, in ordinary course, should have approached this Court for clarification. However, in the given circumstances, we do not think that the act of respondent No. 4 is so grave or serious and against the public interest that this Court should take suo motu action either under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 30.The behaviour of the petitioner also is worth considering in this respect. The petitioner was party to Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. The petitioner was knowing about the interim order passed by the Court in the said writ petition. The petitioner received first notice from the respondent No. 4, Mr. Naik, on 4-9-1998 and thereafter order dated 26-10-1998 was passed. Thereafter, the notices dated 27-11-1998 and 19-1-1999 were issued by the respondent No. 4 and ultimately on 17-2-1999, the order imposing penalty was passed. During all this period, the petitioner was aware that certain orders were being passed by the respondent No. 4 which, according to him were causing breach of the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. 31.The petitioner did not file any Civil Application in the said writ petition to stop the respondent No. 4 from taking any action. Not that, but he had filed revision before the Joint Registrar and he has received the order dated 21-12-1998, passed by the Joint Registrar, which kept in abeyance the order dated 26-10-1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar, on 15-2-1999, as per the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, General Manager, Mr. R.M. Pitale. Even then, the present petition is filed on 21st February 1999. 32.It clearly means that first the petitioner did not approach this Court to seek proper redress in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. When he came to know that the order about which he had a grievance was kept in abeyance by the Joint Registrar, even then he filed this petition. Even then, the present petition is filed on 21st February 1999. 32.It clearly means that first the petitioner did not approach this Court to seek proper redress in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997. When he came to know that the order about which he had a grievance was kept in abeyance by the Joint Registrar, even then he filed this petition. The circumstances do not indicate that the petitioner has come before this Court with an intention to avenge the contempt committed by the respondent, but with intention to have private revenge. When the attitude of the petitioner is such, no suo motu action can be taken for criminal contempt by the Court. 33.This Court, in the case of (Arun Kumar Krishnarao Balpande v. Wasudeorao Kondbaji Ganar others)2, 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 491 has observed: "In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2176, it has to be held now that it is open to the High Court to take suo mottu action on the materials being placed before it provided the Court is satisfied that criminal contempt really exists. But when such a course is adopted it need hardly be emphasised that the suo mottu jurisdiction has to be exercised with circumspection and caution so that frivolous petitions are never entertained." 34.It is already pointed out that so far as petition against the respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Registrar, is without any basis. So far as petition against the respondent No. 3 i.e. respondent No. 4 we have pointed out that the respondent No. 4 had passed the order by putting certain interpretation to the interim relief order passed by this Court. It may be wrong interpretation or right interpretation. But it cannot be said that the respondent No. 4 passed the order with intention to commit Contempt of Court. He could have approached the Court in Writ Petition No. 4862/1997 to seek direction as to what steps he may take. But he did not do that. Therefore, in the given circumstances, contention of the respondent No. 4, that he did not intend to commit Contempt of Court, can be accepted and no action for Contempt of Court is called for against the respondent No. 3 i.e. respondent No. 4 namely, Mr. D.S. Naik. 35.Hence Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2/1999 is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad interim relief dated 3-3-1999 stands vacated. Petition dismissed. -----