Statutory commencement by notification controls amendment effect, and promotion without prescribed qualification cannot be sustained.

Where an amendment is expressed to commence only on a Gazette notification, the amended provisions do not take effect until such notification is actually issued. On that basis, the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act amendments in question were held not to be in force. The petitioner's promotion to Accountant could not be sustained because the prescribed qualification was not met, so reversion to Assistant Accountant stood under the unamended scheme. The court also noted that contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and may be declined where punishment is inexpedient; the contempt matter was dropped.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, namely Sections 28(1), 28(3-b) and 33-A as amended by the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, Act 28 of 1991, had come into force in the absence of a notification under Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the post of Accountant and challenge the reversion to Assistant Accountant. (iii) Whether the contempt proceedings should be pursued against the opposite parties for disobedience of the earlier direction.

Issue (i): Whether the amended provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, namely Sections 28(1), 28(3-b) and 33-A as amended by the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, Act 28 of 1991, had come into force in the absence of a notification under Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act.

Analysis: The amended provisions were made operative only on the date to be notified in the Gazette. No notification under Section 1(2) bringing those provisions into force had been issued. Where commencement depends on a notification, the statutory provisions do not take effect by implication, reasoning, or administrative assumption.

Conclusion: The amended provisions had not come into force.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the post of Accountant and challenge the reversion to Assistant Accountant.

Analysis: Under the unamended regime, the Managing Committee could not validate a promotion inconsistent with the prescribed qualification requirements, and the Registrar's control remained operative. The petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite Commerce or Arts degree for the post of Accountant. The promotion could not therefore be approved, and the order reverting him to Assistant Accountant was consistent with the governing statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief, and the challenge to the reversion failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the contempt proceedings should be pursued against the opposite parties for disobedience of the earlier direction.

Analysis: A wilful disobedience of a direction may amount to civil contempt, but punishment is not automatic. The Court retains discretion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and may decline to proceed where, on the circumstances of the case, it is inexpedient to impose punishment or where the conduct does not warrant interference in the due course of justice.

Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were not proceeded with and were dropped.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded, the earlier writ decision was reopened and set aside, the writ petitions were dismissed on merits, and the contempt matter was not pursued.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides that an amendment will commence only upon notification, the amendment is not in force until such notification is actually issued; and even where disobedience of a judicial direction is shown, contempt jurisdiction remains discretionary and may be declined if punishment is inexpedient.

---