Allahabad High Court
Ajit Kumar Sachan vs Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi And 7 Others on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 185 of 2021
Appellant :- Ajit Kumar Sachan
Respondent :- Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Udai Chandani,Bijay Singh Sachan
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This intra-court appeal has been filed against an order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5490 of 2020 discharging contempt notices issued against the respondents.
The appellant had filed writ No.6848 of 2020 for quashing the order dated 17.8.2020 passed by Special Secretary, Krishi Anubhag Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow. The said petition was allowed vide judgment dated 16.9.2020 and the order impugned therein was quashed.
It appears that when the order of the writ court was not complied, the petitioner-appellant filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.5490 of 2020, wherein notices were issued. On 08.02.2021, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel made a statement that the order of the writ court has been complied by the competent authority on 05.2.2021. Consequently, the notices were discharged and the contempt petition was consigned to records by the impugned order dated 08.02.2021.
The office has raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable.
The legal position with regard to maintainability of an appeal against an order of discharge has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein it was held that an appeal is maintainable under Section 19 only against order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt whereas no appeal lies against an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings, or an order initiating proceedings for contempt or an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor. Relevant para 11 of the judgment is extracted hereunder :
"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus:
I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that even though appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would not lie but a Special Appeal would lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.
The aforesaid submission is misconceived because the learned single judge while exercising power as a contempt court has not decided any issue nor issued any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
Under the circumstances, we uphold the objection of the stamp reporter with regard to maintainability of the appeal and dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
Kushal
