Delhi High Court
Brij Kishore Pushp vs Sh. Arun Goel & Ors. on 30 April, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 186/2009
BRIJ KISHORE PUSHP ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.
versus
SH. ARUN GOEL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. S.N. Chaudhary, Advocate
for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 30.04.2009
1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 27th February, 2009, passed in an application moved
by the appellant in a disposed of contempt petition.
2. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that there
has been no willful disobedience of the orders of the Court.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed but the appellant was
given liberty, if so permissible and in accordance with law, to
challenge the respondents‟ action of imposing "CENSURE" as well as
of granting third time bound promotion scale from the next date of
imposition of punishment of "CENSURE".
3. We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter as the
appeal itself is not maintainable. The appeal is against an order
passed in an application moved in a disposed of contempt petition.
In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined the
prayer of the appellant to proceed against the respondents under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟).
4. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Maharashtra vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy, (1996) 4 SCC 411, a
contempt proceeding is not a dispute between two parties; the
proceeding is primarily between the court and the person who is
alleged to have committed contempt of court. The person who
informs the Court or brings to the notice of the Court that anyone
has committed contempt of such court is not in the position of a
prosecutor; he is simply assisting the court so that the dignity and
the majesty of the court is maintained and upheld. It is for the court,
which initiates the proceeding to decide whether the person against
whom such proceeding has been initiated should be punished or
discharged taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the particular case.
5. Further it has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
in Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal & Anr. , (2003) 3 SCC
171, that a private party or a litigant may also invite the attention of
the Court to such facts as may persuade the Court in initiating
proceedings for contempt. However, such person filing an application
or petition before the Court does not become a complainant or
petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relater. His
duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the Court. It is
thereafter for the Court to act on such information or not to act
though the private party or litigant moving the Court may at the
discretion of the Court continue to render its assistance during the
course of proceedings. That is why it has been held that an informant
does not have a right of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act
against an order refusing to initiate the contempt proceedings or
disposing of the application or petition filed for initiating such
proceedings. He cannot be called an aggrieved party.
6. Further as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in
Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Chunilal Nanda &
Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399, 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. Neither an order declining to initiate a
proceeding for contempt, nor an order initiating proceeding for
contempt nor an order dropping the proceeding for contempt nor an
order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under
Section 19 of the Act.
7. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the present appeal
has not been filed under Section 19 of the Act but under Clause X of
the Letters Patent Act, 1866. The learned Single Judge in the
impugned order has not decided any issue or made any direction
relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. The learned
Single Judge has merely held that there was no willful disobedience
of any specific direction given by the Court and since the issue of
"CENSURE" was not raised before the Court, when it passed the
orders dated 8th December, 2003 and 17th May, 2004, it could not be
said that the respondents were bound in law to ignore the said
punishment. In fact, the learned Single Judge has rightly granted
the liberty to the appellant, if so permissible in law, to challenge the
respondents‟ action of imposing "CENSURE" as well as of granting
third time bound promotion scale from next date of imposition of
punishment of "CENSURE". Thus, since the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order has not decided any issue or made any direction
relating to the merits of the dispute, the said order is not open to
challenge even in an intra-court appeal (provided there was a
provision for an intra-court appeal). As held by the Supreme Court
in Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Chunilal Nanda
& Ors., for an intra-court appeal to be maintainable, the court must
decide the issue or make any direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceeding and in that
case, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. However, no such
decision on an issue or direction relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties has been given in the impugned order.
8. Even otherwise, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and
the appeal must fail. Neither an appeal under Section 19 of the Act
nor an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 is
maintainable in the facts of the present case. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed
of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J
APRIL 30, 2009
sb
