[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Juneja vs Goverdhan Korram on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:17427-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 2024
1 - Ashok Juneja S/o Late S.C. Juneja Aged About 62 Years Presently
Working As Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Respondent No. 2)
2 - Sundarraj P. S/o Shri S. N. Pattilingam Aged About 44 Years Presently
Working As Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, District Bastar,
C.G. (Respondent No. 3)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Goverdhan Korram S/o Sukhuram Korram Aged About 41 Years Posted
As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
2 - Gireshwar Kuldeep S/o Shri Shyamlal Kuldeep Aged About 39 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
3 - Arju Markam S/o Late Shri Pran Singh Markam Aged About 39 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
2
4 - Jitendra Dahre S/o Late Ramchandra Dahre Aged About 36 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
5 - Narendra Dev Manjhi S/o Shri Harishchandra Manjhi Aged About 36
Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker,
C.G. (Petitioner)
6 - Hiteshwari Chelak W/o Shri Arjun Singh Aged About 37 Years Posted
As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
7 - Lakhmu Ram Vatti S/o Late Shri Mangalram Vatti Aged About 40 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
8 - Dinesh Kuldeep S/o Shri Sangram Kuldeep Aged About 38 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
9 - Balaram Netam S/o Late Shri Mohan Ram Netam Aged About 48 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G.
(Petitioner)
10 - Umesh Kumar Chandel S/o Shri Nathuram Aged About 38 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Jagdalpur, District Bastar Jagdalpur, C.G.
(Petitioner)
11 - Malik Ram Lahre S/o Shri Hiccharam Lahre Aged About 41 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. (Petitioner)
12 - Madkam Kala S/o Madkam Bhima Aged About 34 Years Posted As
Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. (Petitioner)
13 - Gwal Singh Usendi S/o Late Shri Dashrath Usendi Aged About 52
Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G.
(Petitioner)
3
14 - Rameshwar Salam S/o Late Shri Munshiram Salam Aged About 47
Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G.
(Petitioner)
15 - Manglu Ram Dugga S/o Shri Chamra Ram Dugga Aged About 48
Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G.
(Petitioner)
16 - Nakul Say Paikra S/o Late Shri Jageshwar Say Paikra Aged About 48
Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G.
(Petitioner)
17 - Jitendra Yadav S/o Shriram Yadav Aged About 36 Years Posted As
Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. (Petitioner)
18 - Kirtan Singh Mandavi S/o Late Shri Labharam Mandavi Aged About
38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
C.G. (Petitioner)
19 - Mandhar Netam S/o Late Shri Chetman Netam Aged About 56 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G.
(Petitioner)
20 - Sanjay Bisen S/o Shri Raghunandan Bisen Aged About 38 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G.
(Petitioner)
21 - Siyaram Marapi S/o Shri Mangal Singh Marapi Aged About 38 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G.
(Petitioner)
22 - Singluram Korram S/o Late Shri Sukalu Ram Korram Aged About 52
Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G.
(Petitioner)
23 - Rajiv Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Dukhesingh Nishad Aged About 37 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. (Petitioner)
4
24 - Pradeep Kumar Kartami S/o Sonsay Katami Aged About 37 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. (Petitioner)
25 - Arjun Manjhi S/o Shri Jaysingh Manjhi Aged About 38 Years Posted
As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. (Petitioner)
26 - Arun Dev Gautam Through - The Secretary, Department Of Home
Affairs (Police) New Raipur Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue
District Raipur, C.G.
27 - Thansingh Deshmukh S/o Shri Lakhanlal Deshmukh Aged About 39
Years Posted As Head Constable At Dantewada, District Dantewada, C.G.
(Petitioner)
28 - Ashish Kumar Nag S/o Vikram Singh Nag Aged About 41 Years Posted
As Head Constable At Dantewada, District Dantewada, C.G. (Petitioner)
29 - Sujit Devnath S/o Late Shri Harkant Devath Aged About 43 Years
Posted As Head Constable At Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G.
(Petitioner)
30 - Gulab Ram S/o Somaru Ram Mandavi Aged About 54 Years Posted As
Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukkma, C.G. (Petitioner)
31 - Gilgiccha Kishore S/o Shri Say Anna Aged About 42 Years Posted As
Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. (Petitioner)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate
DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
16.04.2026
5
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The appellants herein are facing contempt proceedings before this
Court, being Contempt Case No. 159/2024 (Goverdhan Korram &
Ors. v. Mr. Arun Dev Gautam & Ors.), for non-compliance of order
dated 06/10/2023 (Annexure R1/1) passed by learned Single Judge
of this Court in WPS No. 4243/2022 (Goverdhan Korram & Ors. v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.). During the course of hearing, the
Contempt Court, by its impugned order dated 17/09/2024
(Annexure A/1), directed the appellants herein to include the 19
applicants as well in the fit list declared on 01/08/2024 and
thereafter, revise the fit list and as the applicants are senior to the
new incumbents, therefore, they be placed accordingly in the fit
list. The said direction issued by the Contempt Court vide order
dated 17/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) has been made the subject
matter of this appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 19
of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1971").
2. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit
that the Contempt Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction while
passing the order dated 17/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) as the
Contempt Court could not have gone beyond seeing whether the
order dated 06/10/2023 (Annexure R1/1) passed by the Writ Court
has been complied with or not, therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
3. Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, learned counsel for the respondents, would
submit that this appeal is not maintainable under Section 19(1) of
the Act of 1971 in view of the Full Bench decision rendered by this
Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Dubey v. Pradeep Kumar Shukla 1
wherein it has been held that an appeal shall lie under Section 19
of the Act of 1971 against an order framing charge in contempt
proceedings, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival contentions made herein-above and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision
contained under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act of 1971, which states
as under :-
"19. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any
order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt -
(a) where the order of decision is that of a single Judge, to
a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;"
6. It is evident from the aforesaid provision contained under Section
19(1)(a) of the Act of 1971 that an appeal is maintainable only
against an order of decision of High Court passed in exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, the necessary
requirement for maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of
the Act of 1971 is that the order impugned must be one whereby
the Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish the alleged
contemnor.
7. Apart from that, in the matter of Anil Kumar Dubey (supra), the
Full Bench of this Court has held as under :-
ORDER OF THE COURT
In view of the majority judgment rendered, the question
referred to the Full Bench is answered in the following
terms:
"In view of the above discussion, we answer the question
referred to this Court by holding that an appeal shall lie
under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
against an order framing charge in contempt proceedings."
8. As such, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Full
Bench of this Court, an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971
shall lie against an order framing charge in contempt proceedings.
Meaning thereby, that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of
1971 shall lie in exercise of jurisdiction for punishing the
contemnor in a contempt proceeding for non-compliance of the
order of the Court as well as an order framing charge in light of the
principle of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil
Kumar Dubey (supra).
9. In the instant case, vide impugned order dated 17/09/2024
(Annexure A/1), the Contempt Court has neither punished the
appellants herein/contemnors for non-compliance of order dated
06/10/2023 (Annexure R1/1) nor framed charges against them for
ultimately punishing them. The impugned order (Annexure A/1)
passed by the Contempt Court merely issues additional direction to
include the applicants in the fit list and to revise the fit list
accordingly. Thus, the order impugned is in the nature of a
direction issued during the pendency of contempt proceedings and
not an order imposing punishment and against that order, certainly
appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 would not be
maintainable in light of the mandate contained under Section 19(1)
(a) of the Act of 1971 read with the decision rendered by the Full
Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Dubey (supra).
10. In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17/09/2024
(Annexure A/1) does not fall within the ambit of Section 19(1) of
the Act of 1971, as the same is not an order passed in exercise of
jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal, as framed and filed, against the
order dated 17/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Contempt
Court, is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Appellants are at
liberty to challenge the order dated 17/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) in
accordance with law. Needless to say, the interim order passed
earlier shall stand vacated.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Harneet
