Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh Baghel , Secy. , U.P. ... vs Balram Singh And Another on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1 of 2023
Appellant :- Pratap Singh Baghel , Secy. , U.P. Basic Edu. Board , Prayagraj
Respondent :- Balram Singh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ran Vijay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
The instant Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailing the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2413 of 2019, Balram Singh vs. Smt. Rubi Singh and another.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent with regard to maintainability of the Special Appeal. He further submits that the appellant has filed the Special Appeal assailing the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in a contempt matter, whereby he has been directed to file his response to the framing of charges. He further submits that the Apex Court in para 11 of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others [(2006) 5 SCC 399] has framed guidelines in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings which are as under:-
"(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 declaring 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 proceedings, 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 the 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)."
He has lastly submitted that from perusal of the aforesaid guidelines, nowhere, it is mentioned that Special Appeal lies against the order passed by a learned Single Judge in contempt matters. Further, he has submitted that as per Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, no Special Appeal lies against an interlocutory order. In both eventualities, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 2016, Anil Kumar Dubey v. Pradeep Shukla and the judgment and order dated 13.07.2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020, Roop Singh v. Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari and others.
Learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition, but he has submitted that the learned Single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Thus, the Special Appeal is maintainable.
After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the firm opinion that in contempt matters, the Special Appeal does not lie as has been observed by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others (supra). If the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order, he should be availed the remedies as provided under law. Thus, we find force in the submissions of learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to avail remedy as provided under law.
.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
lakshman
