# Chandra Shekhar / v. Sri J.P. Rajpoot & others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-12-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1423 of 2005
- **Bench:** S. Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-shekhar-v-sri-j-p-rajpoot-others-40551
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter 8 rule 5
Contempt of Courts Act-Section 19Special
Appeal-against
the
Order
dropping contempt proceeding-held-not
maintainable-a right of appeal is creative
of
Statute-in
absence
of
specific
provisions appeal can not be pressedHowever if the contempt court dealing
with
contempt
case-same
direction
issued-Special Appeal can be filled only
to that extant.
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Held: Para 7 & 10

A
careful
reading
of
the aforesaid
provision clearly indicates that an appeal
would lie only against such decision or
order
of
the
High
Court
whereby
punishment for contempt is imposed.
Any order or decision, mentioned in the
Section, is qualified by providing of
punishment
for
contempt
in
the
provision. In a contempt matter when
the Court having heard the parties finds
that no case for initiation of contempt
proceeding is made out, in that event, no
right flows to the petitioner on whose
application the proceeding was initiated,
of further appeal under Section 19 of the
Act against the decision of the Hon'ble
Single Judge of this Court dropping the
proceeding. Section 19 of the Act does
not give a right of appeal to the person,
who
has
brought
the
motion
for
initiating contempt proceeding against
the order/judgment holding that no
contempt is made out. Right of appeal is
creature of the statute and unless such
right is given in the statute, a person
feeling aggrieved by such decision or
order has no right to appeal. Our view
that no appeal would lie under Section
19 of the Act against the order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court
declining
to
initiate
proceeding
for
contempt, is supported by judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Baradakanta
Mishra
vs.
Mr.
Justice
Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa
H.C., AIR 1974 SC 2255.

In the present case also since the
Hon'ble Single Judge has refused to
entertain contempt petition, the appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court, is not maintainable and the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, is rejected.
Case law discussed:
1998 (3) UPLBEC 2333
AIR 1974 SC-2255
1997 (3) AWC-1909
1991 Cr. L.J. 3026

## Text

4 All] Chandra Shekhar V. Sri J.P. Rajpoot and others
1117
authority as well as the appellate authority
has rejected the application of the
petitioner for assistance of the lawyer.
However, the delinquent employee has
been given liberty to seek assistance of
any employee of the Bank. The petitioner
is working in the Bank as a Field Officer
since 1982. The charges framed against
him in the disciplinary proceedings are of
not very grave nature, as allegations are
only not working with sincerity and
responsibility,
while
making
recommendation for grant of loans. The
officer representing the employer is
merely an Inspector of the Bank. Thus, he
is neither a lawyer nor a legally trained
person, nor it has been stated that he is a
person of legal acumen, in strict legal
sense, nor there is much difference in
them in the cadre of hierarchy that
petitioner may not be able to represent his
case in his presence.

27. In spite of our repeated queries,
Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner could not point out as to
why the petitioner feels to be not
competent to defend himself. A parrot
like reply came repeatedly that the
petitioner does not want to defend
himself. That is all. Such a plea, if
permitted to be taken, is not enough to
meet the requirement of law.

28. We are of the considered opinion
that petitioner's cause is not going to be
prejudiced or adversely affected by not
giving him the assistance of the lawyer.
The Competent authority had given him
liberty to take assistance of any Bank
employee, and he can still avail it.

29. The supplementary affidavit
filed today in the Court reveals that the
Bank employees, whose names were
given by the petitioner to be his defence
nominee, have refused to do so only and
only on the ground that they would not be
able to spare two days in a week, as the
inquiry had been fixed for two days in
every week, i.e., Friday and Saturday. It is
not his case that nobody was ready to
defend. There is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner ever requested the
competent authority to fix the inquiry
only for one day in a week.

30. In such a fact-situation, no case
is
made
out
for
interference
in
discretionary writ jurisdiction. Petition is
devoid of any merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No.1423 of 2005

Chandra Shekhar ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Sri J.P. Rajpoot & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:

High Court Rules-Chapter 8 rule 5
Contempt of Courts Act-Section 19Special
Appeal-against
the
Order
dropping contempt proceeding-held-not
maintainable-a right of appeal is creative
of
Statute-in
absence
of
specific
provisions appeal can not be pressedHowever if the contempt court dealing
with
contempt
case-same
direction
issued-Special Appeal can be filled only
to that extant.
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Held: Para 7 & 10

A
careful
reading
of
the aforesaid
provision clearly indicates that an appeal
would lie only against such decision or
order
of
the
High
Court
whereby
punishment for contempt is imposed.
Any order or decision, mentioned in the
Section, is qualified by providing of
punishment
for
contempt
in
the
provision. In a contempt matter when
the Court having heard the parties finds
that no case for initiation of contempt
proceeding is made out, in that event, no
right flows to the petitioner on whose
application the proceeding was initiated,
of further appeal under Section 19 of the
Act against the decision of the Hon'ble
Single Judge of this Court dropping the
proceeding. Section 19 of the Act does
not give a right of appeal to the person,
who
has
brought
the
motion
for
initiating contempt proceeding against
the order/judgment holding that no
contempt is made out. Right of appeal is
creature of the statute and unless such
right is given in the statute, a person
feeling aggrieved by such decision or
order has no right to appeal. Our view
that no appeal would lie under Section
19 of the Act against the order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court
declining
to
initiate
proceeding
for
contempt, is supported by judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Baradakanta
Mishra
vs.
Mr.
Justice
Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa
H.C., AIR 1974 SC 2255.

In the present case also since the
Hon'ble Single Judge has refused to
entertain contempt petition, the appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court, is not maintainable and the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, is rejected.
Case law discussed:
1998 (3) UPLBEC 2333
AIR 1974 SC-2255
1997 (3) AWC-1909
1991 Cr. L.J. 3026

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. This special appeal is preferred
against the judgment and order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge dated 28.10.2005
dismissing contempt petition no.3194 of
2004 filed by the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the contempt petition of the
appellant has wrongly been rejected by
the Hon'ble Single Judge on the ground
that the earlier contempt petition having
already been dismissed finding that no
case for contempt is made out, since no
specific direction has been issued by the
writ court, second contempt petition
without any change in the circumstances,
in respect to the same order of the Court,
is liable to be rejected.

3. However, the Court prima facie
found that the appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court itself is
not maintainable. Shri Yogesh Kumar
Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of A.P.
Verma, Principal Secretary, Medical
Health
and
Family
Welfare,
U.P.
Lucknow and others vs. U.P. Laboratory
Technicians Association, Lucknow and
others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 2333 and
submit that the special appeal under
Chapter
VIII
Rule
5
would
be
maintainable.

4.

We
have
considered
the
submissions but do not find any force.
This court in A.P. Verma (supra) held
that in respect of orders passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the
contempt petition, no appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court would be maintainable. However,
4 All] Chandra Shekhar V. Sri J.P. Rajpoot and others
1119
if the contempt court issues certain further
directions to the parties, such directions
would amount to orders issued by the
Hon'ble Single Judge other than those
covered under the Contempt of Courts
Act and to that extent, special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court may be maintainable, since that
would be regarding the merit of the claim
made in the writ petition. The relevant
observation contained in para 8 of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
under: -

"Under the impugned order, learned
Single Judge has recorded a clear finding
that the directions issued in the writ
petition had not been complied with but
he did not want to punish the appellants at
this stage. He has issued a further
direction to the appellants to comply with
the order passed in the writ petition in its
letter and spirit. In view of what we have
held above, this appeal is maintainable
under Section 19 of the Act against the
finding regarding non-compliance of the
order which amounts to a ''civil contempt'
within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the
Act. The appeal will also be maintainable
under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court against the directions issued in
the impugned order which are regarding
the merit of the claim made by the
respondents in the writ petition." (para 8)

5. In the present case, the appellant
filed contempt petition no.414 of 2005
and the Hon'ble Single Judge, after
hearing parties, found that the writ court
has not issued any specific direction,
which is alleged to have been disobeyed
by the respondents and, therefore, no
contempt is made out. Accordingly,
contempt petition was rejected. Again,
contempt petition no.3194 of 2005 was
filed alleging non-compliance of the same
order of the writ court without any
additional facts and circumstances and the
Hon'ble
Single
Judge
has
rejected
contempt petition vide order under appeal.
In
such
circumstances,
the
order
impugned in the appeal does not show
that the Hon'ble Single Judge has issued
any direction regarding merit of the claim
of the appellant in the writ petition and,
therefore,
the
special
appeal
under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court would not be maintainable.

6. The Contempt of Court's Act,
1971 (in short ''Act of 1971') is a selfcontained code with respect to the
procedure to be followed by the Court in
the matter of Contempt. Section 19 of the
Act provides of filing appeal against any
order or decision of the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction and punish for
contempt. Section 19 of the Act reads as
under: -

"Appeals - (1) An appeals shall lie as of
right from any order to decision of 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.
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
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
(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 satisfied 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. A careful reading of the aforesaid
provision clearly indicates that an appeal
would lie only against such decision or
order of the High Court whereby
punishment for contempt is imposed. Any
order or decision, mentioned in the
Section, is qualified by providing of
punishment for contempt in the provision.
In a contempt matter when the Court
having heard the parties finds that no case
for initiation of contempt proceeding is
made out, in that event, no right flows to
the petitioner on whose application the
proceeding was initiated, of further appeal
under Section 19 of the Act against the
decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge of
this Court dropping the proceeding.
Section 19 of the Act does not give a right
of appeal to the person, who has brought
the
motion
for
initiating
contempt
proceeding against the order/judgment
holding that no contempt is made out.
 Right of appeal is creature of the statute
and unless such right is given in the
statute, a person feeling aggrieved by
such decision or order has no right to
appeal. Our view that no appeal would lie
under Section 19 of the Act against the
order of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the
High
Court
declining
to
initiate
proceeding for contempt, is supported by
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Baradakanta Mishra vs. Mr.
Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the
Orissa H.C., AIR 1974 SC 2255 wherein
it has been held as under: -

"It is only when the Court decides to
take action and initiates a proceeding for
contempt that it assumes jurisdiction to
punish for contempt. Where the Court
rejects a motion or a reference and
declines to initiate a proceeding for
contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise
jurisdiction to punish for contempt and
such a decision cannot be regarded as a
decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction
to punish for contempt. Such a decision
would not, therefore, fall within the
opening words of Section 19(1) and no
appeal would lie against it, as of right
under that provision."

8. However, in a matter where the
right of appeal has not been conferred by
the legislature under the Act of 1971, can
a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Rules of the Court would be
maintainable is a moot question to be
considered in this appeal. In our view, this
question is no more res integra since this
issue has already been dealt with by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sheo
Charan vs. Nawal and others, 1997 (3)
AWC 1909 wherein this Court held as
under: -

"The Contempt of Courts Act was
enacted "to define and limit the powers of
certain courts in punishing contempt of
courts and to regulate their procedure in
relation thereto-"The Supreme Court in
Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya
4 All] Chandra Shekhar V. Sri J.P. Rajpoot and others
1121
Pradesh, Jabalpur, AIR 1992 Supreme
Court 904, has held that after the
enforcement of the Act, the procedure laid
down therein will govern the contempt
proceedings before the High Court. The
relevant extract of said decision is
reproduced below:

"Prior to the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, it was held that the High Court has
inherent power to deal with a contempt of
itself summarily and to adopt its own
procedure, provided that it gives a fair and
reasonable opportunity to the contemnor
to defend himself. But the procedure has
now been prescribed by Section 15 of the
Act in exercise of the powers conferred
by Entry 14, List III of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. Though, the
contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and the High Court can be
regulated by legislation by appropriate
Legislature under Entry 77 of List I and
Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which
the Parliament has enacted the Act, 1971,
the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and the High Court is given a
constitutional foundation by declaring to
be ''Courts of Record' under Articles 129
and 215 of the Constitution and, therefore,
the inherent power of the Supreme Court
and the High Court cannot be taken away
by any legislation short of constitutional
amendment."

The Act has defined ''contempt/, laid
down procedure and has placed limitation
on the powers of the courts. By Section
19, the Act has created a right of appeal
from an order or decision of the court
imposing punishment for contempt. There
is no provision for appeal under the Act
against the decision discharging the notice
of
contempt
and/or
dismissing
the
contempt petition. When statute provides
for appeal and also lays down the
orders/decisions against which such an
appeal can be filed, the Legislature's
intention is that appeal against all other
orders is barred. As Section 19 has
provided for appeal against an order or
decision
imposing
punishment
for
contempt, the right to file an appeal
against all other orders has been taken
away by the statute. The result is that the
appeal against a decision, rejecting the
contempt petition is not maintainable
under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII also." (para
11)

9. A similar issue came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of
Madras High Court in Shantha V. Pai vs.
Vasanth Builders, 1991 Cr.L.J. 3026 with
respect to the maintainability of the
appeal under Clause 15 of the letters
patent. The Division Bench held that an
order, which is not appealable under
Section 19 of the Contempt Act, cannot
be appealed under Clause 15 of the letters
patent. The Court observed as under: -

".................we hold that a Letters
Patent Appeal under clause 15 would not
lie against any order passed in exercise of
the contempt jurisdiction by the High
Court where the trial judge refuses to take
cognizance of an application seeking to
punish the opposite party for contempt of
Court or where it rejects the application
after being satisfied that its order had not
been flouted and was of the opinion that
no vindication of its order was called for
by committing the alleged contemnor for
contempt of Court." (para 24)

In A.P. Verma (supra) also the
Division Bench of this Court agreeing
with the view taken in the aforesaid case
has held that under Chapter VIII Rule 5
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
such an appeal is not maintainable and in
para 6 this Court has observed as under: -

"....................... We are in respectful
agreement with the view taken in the
aforesaid decisions that no appeal is
maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5
of this Rules of the Court against any
order
passed
in
proceedings
under
Contempt of Courts Act as it is a self
contained Code and it also provides for a
remedy of appeal under Section 19 though
only against specific type of orders or
decisions." (para 6)

10. In the present case also since the
Hon'ble Single Judge has refused to
entertain contempt petition, the appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court, is not maintainable and the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, is rejected.

11. In view of the above discussion,
the special appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47307 of 2005

Chaudhary Chandan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ch. Chandan Singh
(In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226readwith Saw Mill Rules 1998-rule 5,6
and
7
alongwith
Notification
dated
3.6.2002-Grant of Saw Mill licenceRegional Director Samajik Vaniki Van
Prabhag-rejected
the
application
for
renewal-challenge made on the ground
placing reliance upon the decisions of
Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Case
reported in J.T. 2002 (1) SC-413-heldsubsequent decisions of the Apex Court
not brought before the Supreme Courtby which it is mandatory that the
application for licence to be placed
before
the
Central
Empowered
Committee-Regional
Director
rightly
rejected
the
application-call
for
no
interference by High Court.

Held: Para 18 and 23

It is upon a consideration of the
aforesaid provision of the Rules and the
orders of the Supreme Court that the
Regional
Director
has
rejected
the
application of the petitioner for grant of
licence. It has been noticed that the
licence had never been issued in favour
of the petitioner prior to 4th March, 1997
but even without the issue of such
licence
the
petitioner
had
been
depositing the licence fee. It has further
been
noticed
that
the
Central
Empowered
Committee
in
its
recommendations
placed
before
the
Supreme Court had made it clear that
the licence cannot be granted merely
upon deposit of the licence fee and in
such
circumstances,
the
petitioner
cannot take the benefit of the decision
given by this Court in Nand Lal Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors,. 2002 ALJ 1255. The
Regional Director has also referred to
the directions issued by the Supreme
Court that no State Government or the
Union of India shall permit the opening
of saw-mill without prior permission of
the Central Empowered Committee. In
such
circumstances
the
Regional
Director has concluded that the licence