Delhi High Court
Dr R S Gupta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 26 April, 2023
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2856-DB
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th April, 2023
+ CONT.APP.(C) 18/2023 & CM APPL.20691/2023
DR R S GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: In person
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Ms.
Aakriti Garg, Advocates for R-5 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking setting
aside of the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2023 in CCP 456/2019; and
directions to respondents to comply with order dated 04.10.2018.
2. It is not in dispute that vide the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2023,
the contemnor has already been discharged and appeal is not maintainable as
decided by order dated 01.11.2022 of this Court passed in Cont. App. (C)
21/2022. The relevant paras of said order are as under:
"7. Alas as the position had not changed, there was no occasion for
anyone, much less the respondents to be held guilty of contempt, as
has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge. There were no
circumstances giving rise to any suspicion of holding the respondents
guilty of any offence. In essence, the respondents have not been held
guilty of contempt and have certainly not been punished for the same.
In such a case, no appeal under Section 19 of the Act shall lie. Such
an order rejecting a petition for contempt in such circumstances is not
open to challenge and as an appeal under Section 19 of the Act only
Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2023
12:24
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2856-DB
lies when the Court has exercised its power to have held a contemnor
guilty of contempt or when such contemnor has been punished and not
when such power has not been exercised by the Court. In other words,
denial of an order not holding a contemnor guilty or punishing a
contemnor, is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act.
8. In view thereof, for an appeal to be maintainable under Section
19 of the Act there has to be a definite finding against a contemnor, or
else there cannot be any right to appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
The law of contempt is very clear. A plain reading of the Act reveals
that the provision of appeal is extremely limited and according to us
„regulated‟. The availability and maintainability of an appeal under
Section 19 of the Act is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or
being punished under the act and in no other case. The present case is
not of that kind.
9. It is an established concept of law that a contempt is only
between the alleged Contemner and the Court. Appellant by setting
into motion the machinery of the Court for issuance of contempt has
failed to bring to notice anything which constitutes contempt by
respondents, therefore no act of contempt has been committed by
them. As such the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the
contempt petition was not maintainable and dismissed the same. So
much so, the learned Single Judge has rightly expressed that it will be
open to petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court, if not
already filed, to establish their case as to entitlement to benefits of the
judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken (supra)."
3. In view of above, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same
is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 26, 2023/rk
Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2023
12:24
