( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred with a basic grievance that despite the Judgment and Order made by this Court quashing and setting aside the Circulars issued by the Registrar, respondent No. 1, in relation to fixation of priority of the creditors and disbursement of the funds as per directions of the Registrar, the Liquidator, respondent No. 2, is persisting with disbursing the funds in accordance with Circular / Oral Instructions issued by the Registrar. On 23rd April, 2007 the Court issued Notice making it returnable on 8th May, 2007. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the respondents have put in appearance and respondent No. 2 has filed an Affidavit dated 11th July, 2007 sworn by the then Liquidator, Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel. In paragraph No. 5 and in paragraph No. 7 of the said Affidavit-in-reply, the following averments have been made: "5. Thereafter, in exercise of the statutory powers conferred by Section 110 of the Act, the respondent No. 2 had sold plant and machinery, building, stores, stocks, furniture, fixtures, office equipments etc. for a sum of Rs. 3. 53 crores. I say that about Rs. 3. 15 crores have been disbursed to various Creditors of the Mill company in accordance with Law on priority basis. I say that yet, about Rs. 16 lacs are to be paid to the concerned workers towards their gratuity i. e. 50%. The claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. I say that Section 110 (e) does not require any personal hearing to be given to the petitioner. I deny that the action of the respondent No. 2 is illegal, in gross breach of the mandatory procedure as prescribed in Section 110 of the Act and unreasonable. 7. I respectfully submit that Section 110 deals with the powers of the Liquidator. The said powers are to be exercised by the Liquidator subject to the Rules and the general supervision, control and direction of the Registrar. I say that in view of the Judgment dated 02. 12. 2006 passed by this Hon ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 20104 of 2006, the respondent No. 2 is bound to act in accordance with law declared by this Hon ble High Court. I reiterate and submit that the provisions of the Act do not contemplate an opportunity of hearing to be given to the petitioner before fixing priorities. 2006 passed by this Hon ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 20104 of 2006, the respondent No. 2 is bound to act in accordance with law declared by this Hon ble High Court. I reiterate and submit that the provisions of the Act do not contemplate an opportunity of hearing to be given to the petitioner before fixing priorities. I say that the claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. The statements of facts and/or allegations made in this petition are incorrect, ill-founded and I deny the same". It is further stated in the said Affidavit that the dues of the workers have been paid in accordance with law and as per the priority without specifying as to: who had fixed the order of priority; when were the funds disbursed. ( 3 ) HENCE, on 09. 10. 2007, the following order came to be made by the Court. ( 4 ) ON 24. 10. 2007, the said gentleman, Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel, the then Liquidator tendered an additional Affidavit and stated in paragraph No. 4 of the said Affidavit as under: "4. I respectfully submit that I was not aware about the judgment dated 2. 12. 2006 passed by this Hon ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 20104 of 2006. Later on, I came to know about this judgment and as per the directions of this Hon ble Court, the respondent No. 2 has fixed the order of priority in accordance with Law. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I is a copy of the circular dated 27. 09. 2007". ( 5 ) IN the said Affidavit in paragraph No. 1, the following averments were made: "1. I say that in exercise of the statutory powers conferred by Section 110 of the Act, the respondent No. 2 had sold plant and machinery, building, stores, stocks, furniture, fixtures, office equipments etc. for a sum of Rs. 3. 53 Crores. Meanwhile, the Liquidator had received claims from various creditors. After receiving the claims from various creditors of the Mill Company in accordance with the order of priority. I respectfully submit that after receiving this petition, no disbursement has been made to any creditor". ( 6 ) THE Court therefore made an order dated 29. 11. 2007: ( 7 ) IN compliance with the order dated 29. 11. After receiving the claims from various creditors of the Mill Company in accordance with the order of priority. I respectfully submit that after receiving this petition, no disbursement has been made to any creditor". ( 6 ) THE Court therefore made an order dated 29. 11. 2007: ( 7 ) IN compliance with the order dated 29. 11. 2007 further Affidavit dated 4th December, 2007 has been tendered by the Liquidator, Shri Mahendrabhai Chhotabhai Patel, who has taken over as Liquidator on and from 1st December, 2007. Paragraph No. 2 of the said Affidavit gives the details of various claims received by the Liquidator. Paragraph No. 3 refers to Circular dated 22. 05. 2006 issued by the Registrar and gives details of the amounts disbursed between 17th February, 2005 to 21st November, 2006. The last sentence of paragraph No. 3 states : "it appears from the record that after receiving this petition, no disbursement has been made to any creditor". Thereafter various averments have been made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 in relation to the position of the petitioner in the order of priority fixed as per Circular dated 22. 05. 2006. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the last Affidavit dated 4th December, 2007 read as under: 7. I respectfully submit that after pronouncement of the Judgment by this Hon ble Court on 2. 12. 2006, my predecessor-Liquidators has received a communication dated 19. 12. 2006 from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar and the same was received by him on 28. 02. 2007. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-III is a copy of the said communication dated 19. 12. 2006. As per the directions of the Registrar dated 19. 12. 2006, my predecessor-Liquidator has acted and disbursed the amounts as per the order of priority dated 22. 05. 2006 after obtaining prior permission of the Registrar of Industrial Co-Operative Societies. 8. It appears from the record that after the decision of this Hon ble Court dated 02. 12. 2006, my predecessor-Liquidator, under bonafide belief with prior sanction of the Registrar and as per the directions of the Registrar made the following payments. 05. 2006 after obtaining prior permission of the Registrar of Industrial Co-Operative Societies. 8. It appears from the record that after the decision of this Hon ble Court dated 02. 12. 2006, my predecessor-Liquidator, under bonafide belief with prior sanction of the Registrar and as per the directions of the Registrar made the following payments. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, it becomes clear that prima-facie the statement made in last sentence of paragraph No. 3 that the Liquidator did not make any disbursement after receipt of the petition does not appear to be a correct statement. It is also not correctly stated that the Liquidator became aware of the Judgment of the Court, which was rendered on 2nd December, 2006, only when the petition was received and not prior thereto, because in paragraph No. 7, the Liquidator himself has referred to communication dated 19. 12. 2006 received from the Registrar referring to the Judgment of the Court whereunder all the earlier Circulars, including Circular dated 22. 05. 2006, had been quashed and set aside. In fact, the opening portion of paragraph No. 8 of the Affidavit gives a clear indication that even after the decision of the Court dated 02. 12. 2006 the predecessor-Liquidator, with prior sanction of the Registrar and as per directions of the Registrar made payments between 19th February, 2007 to 27th April, 2007. ( 10 ) THIS fact has to be appreciated in context of communication dated 19th December, 2006 (Annexure-K) wherein the petitioner had categorically invited attention of the Liquidator to the Judgment of the Court and enclosed a copy of the said Judgment as can be seen from the following relevant extract of the said communication: "we may further invite you kind attention to the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court as rendered in the orders dated 1. 12. 2006 and 2. 12. 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 20104 of 2006 and allied matters. Copies of the said orders passed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court are enclosed herewith the ready reference". ( 11 ) HENCE, Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel, the then Liquidator In-charge has committed, prima-facie, contempt by willfully defying the Judgment of this Court. The learned advocate for the Liquidator has submitted at this stage that he has been orally instructed to state that a copy of the Judgment had not been enclosed along with communication dated 19. 12. ( 11 ) HENCE, Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel, the then Liquidator In-charge has committed, prima-facie, contempt by willfully defying the Judgment of this Court. The learned advocate for the Liquidator has submitted at this stage that he has been orally instructed to state that a copy of the Judgment had not been enclosed along with communication dated 19. 12. 2006 by the petitioner and therefore, the Liquidator was not aware about Judgment. In the first instance, despite two Affidavits having been filed by the said gentleman, Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel, at no point of time has it come on record that he had not been made aware of the Judgment of the Court by the petitioner vide communication dated 19. 12. 2006. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, the statement that the Liquidator become aware of the Judgment of the Court for the first time only on receipt of the petition also stands falsified by the averments made in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the Affidavit dated 4th December, 2007 filed by the Liquidator himself. At least on 28th February, 2007 even as per the say of the Liquidator, the Liquidator had been informed about Judgment of this Court by the Registrar. ( 13 ) IN so far as respondent No. 1-Registrar is concerned from the communication dated 19. 12. 2006 (Annexure-III annexed to the further affidavit dated 04. 12. 2007) it is apparent that the said Authority took it upon himself that the Judgment of the Court is not required to be followed till the period for preferring an appeal expires and he has directed all the District Registrars to ask the Liquidators functioning under each District Registrar to make disbursement after consultation with the Registrar. This communication dated 19. 12. 2006 itself is in gross and willful defiance of Judgment of this Court which was operational on the said day. ( 14 ) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which have come on record, Notice to the Registrar- respondent No. 1 as well as Shri Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel, the then Liquidator, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against both of them for gross and willful defiance of Judgment of this Court. ( 15 ) MATTER to be listed on 9th January, 2008.