A. N. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) VIDE order dated 29th July, 2005, while disposing of the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 4772 (MB) of 2005), filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court directed the opposite party to the said writ petition, to complete the enquiry and hold the election of the Committee of management as early as possible within a period of 2 months from the date the order was passed. So far as with regard to the appointment of the Administrator, the Bench observed that the said appointment should be made strictly in accordance with law in the light of various judgments pronounced by this Court. ( 2 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of the aforesaid order was served on opposite party on 1. 8. 2005, who in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 (5) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, (hereinafter to be referred to as act), on 6. 8. 2005, appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, as Administrator. ( 3 ) THE only submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order appointing the Administrator, the opposite party had not made any reference to the judgments mentioned in the order dated 29. 7. 2005, which act according to him is a wilful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the said order. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate, nor has he been able to point out, upon being asked that whether or not, the power under Section 29 (5) of the Act has been exercised in the manner prescribed, while passing the order dated 6. 8. 2005. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the order appointing the Administrator runs contrary or in any manner is in derogation of the various judgments pronounced by this Court, including the judgment referred to in the order dated 29. 7. 2005. The submission only is that there is no reference of the judgment passed by this Court in the order dated 6. 8. 2005. ( 5 ) THE argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. 7. 2005. The submission only is that there is no reference of the judgment passed by this Court in the order dated 6. 8. 2005. ( 5 ) THE argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. So long as the authority exercises the power within the four corners of a particular provision of a statute, and does not transgress from the principles laid down by this Court and complies with the directions made therein, mere non-mentioning of the judgment or orders referred to in the order which requires to be complied with, does not amount to any violation or contempt of the said order as none of the conditions stipulated therein are violated or wilfully disobeyed. ( 6 ) AS would appear from the perusal of the order dated 29 July, 2005, two directions were given, (i) the election of Committee of Management to be held within a period of two months from the date the order was passed, and (ii) Administrator was to be appointed strictly in accordance with law in the light of various judgments pronounced by this Court. Both the directions having been satisfied by the opposite party, there is no violation of the order dated 29. 7. 2005. ( 7 ) THE contempt petition, in the circumstances being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. . .