Pola Bhaskar, vs Shaik Shain Bi,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3523 AP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
              HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                      CONTEMPT APPEAL No.6 of 2021
                        (Through Video-Conferencing)

Pola Bhaskar, IAS, S/o. P. Venkataiah, aged about
55 years, Commissioner of Collegiate Education,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, ANR Towers, 1st floor,
Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-521108                    ... Appellant

                                      Versus

Shaik Shain Bi, W/o. Shaik Kalesha, aged 40 years,
R/o. Ward No.29, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Ongole,
Prakasam District, and others                                     ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah

Counsel for respondents : Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 15.09.2021 (Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This contempt appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act of 1971") by one Mr. Pola Bhaskar,

Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who

is respondent No.2 in C.C.No.1300 of 2020, against an order dated

26.07.2021. The said order reads as follows:

"Issue notice in Form-I to the respondents 1 to 3.

Post on 27.08.2021."

3. It is contended by Mr. Krishnaiah that before issuing notice in Form-I,

there was no consideration with regard to the responses filed by the

appellant, wherein it is categorically stated that there is no violation of the

order of the Court, which is alleged to have been violated. It is submitted 2 HCJ & NJS,J C.A.No.6 of 2021

that the learned single Judge committed grave error in issuing notice in

Form-I and directing the appellant to appear before the Court, as no reasons

were given for directing appearance under Rule 18 of the Contempt of Court

Rules, 1980. It is also submitted that petitioners had produced fake and

fabricated material and, therefore, contempt case should have been

dismissed after considering the averments made in the counter-affidavit.

4. Mr. Krishnaiah further submits that issuance of notice in Form-I

indicates framing of charge and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable

under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 and in support thereof, he places

reliance on a decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in Anil Kumar Dubey v.

Pradeep Kumar Shukla, reported in Law Finder Doc Id # 834177, wherein

by a majority decision, it was held that appeal lies against an order framing

charge in contempt proceedings.

5. Mr. Krishnaiah has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Manoj Kumar

Sharma, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 460, to impress upon the Court

that the learned single Judge was in error in directing personal appearance,

which is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Section 19 of the Act of 1971, which is relevant for the purpose of

this case, reads as follows:

19. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or

decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to

punish for contempt--

(a) Where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a

Bench of not less than two judges of the Court;

(b) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the

Supreme Court:

                                      3                              HCJ & NJS,J
                                                                C.A.No.6 of 2021

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court

of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal

shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that--

(a) The execution of the punishment or order appealed against be

suspended;

(b) If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

(c) The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant

has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an

appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends

to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any

of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed--

(a) In the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within

thirty days;

(b) In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty

days, from the date of the order appealed against."

7. In D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 26, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 held as under:

"8. The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of

Section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court

passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of

Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High

Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of 4 HCJ & NJS,J C.A.No.6 of 2021

such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for

contempt of itself. In other words, the High Court derives its

jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the

Constitution. As has been noticed earlier, an appeal will lie under

Section 19(1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order

or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and, in our opinion

rightly, that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as

conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes

a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not

impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High Court

does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for

contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When

no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say

that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as

conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution.

10. There can be no doubt that whenever a court, tribunal or

authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter, such

jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or

against a person. For example, a civil court is conferred with the

jurisdiction to decide a suit; the civil court will have undoubtedly

the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same. But when

a court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in a

particular manner, the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will

involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other.

Article 215 confers jurisdiction or power on the High Court to

punish for contempt. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction

only by punishing for contempt. It is true that in considering a 5 HCJ & NJS,J C.A.No.6 of 2021

question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or

not, the court hears the parties and considers the materials

produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and,

thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for

contempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High

Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such

exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular

manner, that is to say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So

long as no punishment is imposed by the High Court, the High

Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to

punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution.

12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question

whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be

considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute

and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. In

this connection, it may be noticed that there was no right of

appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. It is for the first

time that under Section 19(1) of the Act, a right of appeal has

been provided for. A contempt is a matter between the court and

the alleged contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of

the court for contempt only brings to the notice of the court

certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing

such information he may still assist the court, but it must always

be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only

two parties, namely, the court and the contemnor It may be one

of the reasons which weighed with the legislature in not

conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt.

The aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the

contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court."

                                         6                             HCJ & NJS,J
                                                                  C.A.No.6 of 2021

8. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, amongst others, indicate that

the right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of

the Act of 1971 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in

the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Article 215 of the

Constitution confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of

itself. In other words, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for

contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. The High Court exercises its

jurisdiction or power as conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution where

it imposes a punishment for contempt. When no punishment is imposed by

the High Court, it cannot be said that High Court has exercised its

jurisdiction or power as conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution.

9. It was also held in D.N. Taneja (supra) that right of appeal is a

creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal

or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the

statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. It

was categorically laid down that aggrieved party under Section 19(1) of the

Act of 1971 can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt

of court.

10. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-op Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda &

Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, the Supreme Court at paragraph 11,

had observed as follows:

"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to

appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised

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.

                                 7                              HCJ & NJS,J
                                                           C.A.No.6 of 2021

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 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).

The first point is answered accordingly."

                                       8                              HCJ & NJS,J
                                                                 C.A.No.6 of 2021

11. A perusal of the above would go to show that an appeal under Section

19 of the Act of 1971 is maintainable 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. 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 Act of 1971.

12. In the instant case, no punishment has been imposed on the

contemnor and, therefore, till now the High Court has not exercised its

power under Article 215 of the Constitution to impose punishment.

13. In the decision in Anil Kumar Dubey (supra), by 2:1 majority, it was

held that any order which is not an interlocutory order but by which the

High Court proceeds to exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, would be

appealable and, therefore as a corollary, it was held that an appeal shall lie

under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 against an order framing charge in

contempt proceedings. Minority view was that an order framing charge

neither decides any bone of contention between the parties affecting their

substantive right nor does it impose any of the punishments/penalties and,

therefore, same not being an order or decision within the meaning of

sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1971, no appeal would lie against

such an order framing charge for contempt.

14. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N. Taneja (supra) and Midnapore Peoples'

Co-op Bank Ltd. (supra), wherein it is categorically laid down that an

appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 will be maintainable against an

order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to

punish for contempt, that is, when an order imposing punishment for

contempt is passed and not when contempt proceedings are initiated, we 9 HCJ & NJS,J C.A.No.6 of 2021

are unable to agree with the view taken by the Chattisgarh High Court in

Anil Kumar Dubey (supra) that against an order framing charge, an appeal

will lie.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra), had

occasion to say that a practice has developed in certain High Courts to call

officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. It was

noted that the public officers of the Executive are also performing their

duties as the third limb of the governance and it is always open to the High

Court to set aside the decision which does not meet the test of judicial

review but summoning of officers frequently is not appreciable and the

same is liable to be condemned.

16. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that despite

staying of the operation of the order which had the consequence of

contempt proceedings being kept in abeyance, personal appearance was

directed. It was also observed that once the order alleging violation of

which contempt case was filed was stayed, there would be no cause for

calling the officers as there was no question of any non-compliance of the

order which had been stayed.

17. Present is not a case of that kind. Here, charge has been framed by

issuance of notice in Form-I, which required the contemnor to be present to

answer the charge. Therefore, the aforesaid case has no application to the

facts of the present case.

18. In view of the above discussion, we hold that this appeal is not

maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                NINALA JAYASURYA, J
MRR