# Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda v. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** J. Contempt Appeal Defective No. 1 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-district-inspector-of-school-gonda-v-surendra-pratap-singh-ors-51556
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court Act,
1971
-
Section
19
-
Appeal
-
Maintainability of - In instant Contempt
Appeal, order dated 13.12.2023 records
finding
of
guilt
against
appellant
-
contemnor,
rejecting
three
affidavits
tendering unconditional apology along
with applications seeking discharge of
notice - Order further ignored facts
relating
to
approval
of
Competent
Authority
for
termination
of
writ
petitioners' services and for recovery of
loss to public exchequer from then DIOS
and
Committees
of
Management
-
Impugned order does not merely frame
charge simpliciter but records adverse
finding
against
appellant-contemnor,
leaving no scope for him to further explain
his conduct in relation to alleged noncompliance
of
writ
court's
order
-
Supreme Court consistently held where
High Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction
to punish for contempt and does not
initiate proceedings, no appeal shall lie,
and
likewise
no
appeal
lies
from
interlocutory order
- In Baradakanta
Mishra (infra) it was held that orders or
decisions wherein point is determined or
finding recorded in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction would be appealable - Thus,
Contempt Appeal, maintainable. (Para 62
to 64)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1247

## Text

_Characters 0–39,675 of 81,074. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39675 for what follows._

1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgements of this Court in Bhanwar
Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra
(supra) as well as directions of Director
General of Police, Government of U.P. &
the Home Secretary, Government of U.P.
issued in compliance thereof have been
implemented or not and to take appropriate
action as per law.

40. The learned trial court shall also
take appropriate measures in law after
receipt of such affidavit which may include
summoning the concerned officials in
person.

41. The trial judge shall submit a
fortnightly report on the progress of trial
and the steps taken to comply with this
order to the learned District Judge.

42. A copy of this order be
communicated to the learned trial judge
through the learned District Judge, Bijnor
as well as Superintendent of Police, Bijnor
by the Registrar (Compliance) by Email.

43. Government Advocate shall also
communicate a copy of this order to
Director General (Prosecution), State of
U.P., Lucknow for taking appropriate
action to ensure compliance of the
directions in regard to Section 226 of the
Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule
35 of the General Rules (Criminal) by the
public prosecutor in all criminal trials.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I,
J.
Contempt Appeal Defective No. 1 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School
Gonda ...Appellant
Versus
Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Jyotinjay Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Girish Chandra Verma

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court Act,
1971
-
Section
19
-
Appeal
-
Maintainability of - In instant Contempt
Appeal, order dated 13.12.2023 records
finding
of
guilt
against
appellant
-
contemnor,
rejecting
three
affidavits
tendering unconditional apology along
with applications seeking discharge of
notice - Order further ignored facts
relating
to
approval
of
Competent
Authority
for
termination
of
writ
petitioners' services and for recovery of
loss to public exchequer from then DIOS
and
Committees
of
Management
-
Impugned order does not merely frame
charge simpliciter but records adverse
finding
against
appellant-contemnor,
leaving no scope for him to further explain
his conduct in relation to alleged noncompliance
of
writ
court's
order
-
Supreme Court consistently held where
High Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction
to punish for contempt and does not
initiate proceedings, no appeal shall lie,
and
likewise
no
appeal
lies
from
interlocutory order
- In Baradakanta
Mishra (infra) it was held that orders or
decisions wherein point is determined or
finding recorded in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction would be appealable - Thus,
Contempt Appeal, maintainable. (Para 62
to 64)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1247
1. Midnapore People's Cooperative Bank Limited
Vs Chunni Lal Nanda, 2006 (5) SCC 399, (Para
11)

2. Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Sandeep
Kumar & ors.., 2020 SCC OnLine Allahabad 211

3. Om Prakash Vs Arun Chand Pandey, 2008
(26) LCD 1467

4. Devesh Kumar Mishra & ors..Vs Sudhanshu
Dhar Trivedi, Contempt Appeal No.17 of 2005

5. Baradakanta Mishra Vs Justice Gatikrushna
Misra, AIR 1974 SC 2255

6. Baradkanta Mishra Vs The Registrar of Orissa
High Court & anr., AIR 1976 SC 1206

7. Purshotam Dass Goel Vs Hon'ble Mr. Justice
B. S. Dhillon & ors.., AIR 1978 SC 1014

8. D.N. Taneja Vs Bhajan Lal, 1988 (3) SCC 26,
(Para 12)

9. St. of Maharashtra Vs Mahboob S. Allibhoy &
anr., 1996 (4) SCC 411

10. R.N. Dey Vs Bhagyabati Pramanik, 2000 (4)
SCC 400, (Para 10)

11. Modi Telefibres Ltd Vs Sujit Kumar
Choudhary & ors.., 2005 (7) SCC 40

12. Parents Association of Students Vs M. A.
Khan & anr. 2009 (2) SCC 641, (Paras 11, 12)

13. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association Vs S.C. Sekar & ors..,
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 784

14. ECL Finance Limited Vs Hari Kishen Shankr
Ji, Gudipati & ors..reported in (2018) 13 SCC
142

15. Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs R.K. Singh & anr.
2004, Criminal Law Journal Allahabad 4817,
(Paras 15, 16)

16. T. George Vs Vijai Kumar Srivastava, 2003
(5) AWC 4247, (Para 14)

17. Sanjay Kumar Vs Santosh Kumar Srivastava
reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 354, (Para 15)

18. Jai Karan Lal Verma Vs Rajesh Kumar
Pathak & ors..reported in 2008 (1) AWC Page 61

19. Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Sandeep
Kumar & ors.., 2020 SCC online Allahabad 211

20. Arun Kumar Gupta Vs Jyoti Prasanna Das
Thakur, (1996) ILR 1 Calcutta 292

21. Manjula Chaudhary Vs Priyanka Chauhan,
2015 (4), MPLJ 704, (Paras 10, 14)

22. Amit Kumar Dubey Vs Pradeep Kumar
Shukla 2017 Cr.L.J. 1315, (Paras 38, 45, 46, 74)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

1. This Contempt Appeal has been
filed against the order passed by the
Contempt Judge dated 13.12.2023 framing
charge against the Appellant.

2. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri G.C. Verma, learned Counsel
for the respondent that such Contempt
Appeal is not maintainable against an order
by the Contempt Judge, only framing
charge.

3. Reliance has been placed by the
counsel for the respondent on the Supreme
Court observations in Midnapore People's
Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Chunni Lal
Nanda, 2006 (5) SCC 399; where the
Supreme Court had observed that a
Contempt Appeal would lie only against an
order imposing punishment. The counsel
for the respondent has also placed reliance
upon two Division Bench judgements of
the Court rendered in Dr. Ashwini Kumar
Singh Vs. Dr. Sandeep Kumar and others,
1248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2020 SCC OnLine Allahabad 211, where
the Division Bench also placed reliance
upon another Division Bench judgement
rendered in the case of Om Prakash Versus
Arun Chand Pandey, 2008 (26) LCD 1467,
and on a similar decision rendered in
Contempt Appeal No.17 of 2005: Devesh
Kumar
Mishra
and
others
versus
Sudhanshu Dhar Trivedi.

4. The counsel for the appellant on the
other hand has argued that the order
impugned in this Appeal is not an order,
framing
charge
simplicitor
but
the
Contempt Judge has given a finding of the
District Inspector of Schools being guilty
and rejected the affidavits filed along with
applications
rendering
unconditional
apology by the appellant.

5. Appreciating the arguments raised
by the counsel for the parties, this Court
shall first consider the language of Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Section 19 of the Act provides
as follows: -

(1) An Appeal shall lie as of right
from any order or decision of High Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt - (a), where the order or decision
is 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
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)
execution of punishment, or order remains
suspended; (b) if the appellant is in
confinement, he be released on bail (c) An
Appeal be heard notwithstanding that the
Appellant has not purged 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) until an
Appeal under Sub-section (1) shall be filed
- (a) in the case of an Appeal to a Bench of
the High Court, within 30 days; (b) in case
of an Appeal to the Supreme Court, within
60 days from the date of the order,
appealed against.

7. We shall now consider various
judgments of the Supreme Court to
understand the true import of Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts Act.

8. In Baradakanta Mishra Vs.
Justice Gatikrushna Misra, AIR 1974 SC
2255, the High Court had refused to take
action on the motion made by the Applicant
for initiating contempt proceedings. The
Appellant filed a Criminal Appeal under
Section 19 of the Act, a preliminary
objection was raised that the Appeal was
not maintainable. The Supreme Court
observed that so far as Criminal Contempt
is concerned, it is a matter entirely between
the Court and the Contemnor. The litigant
can only draw the attention of the Court to
the alleged Contempt, and it will then be
for the Court, if it so thinks fit, to take
action to vindicate it's authority and direct
the arrest of the Contemnor for contempt.
There is no right in anyone to compel the
Court to initiate a proceeding for contempt,
even where a prima facie case appears to
have been made out. The Court may in
exercise of its discretion accept an
unconditional apology from the Contemnor
and drop the proceedings. Even after the
Contemnor is found guilty, the Court may
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1249
having regard to the circumstances, decline
to punish him. The Supreme Court further
observed that it is only when the Court
decides to take action and initiate a
proceeding for contempt that it assumes
jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Where
the Court rejects the motion or 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 language of
Section 19 of the Act.

9. In Baradkanta Mishra Vs. The
Registrar of Orissa High Court and
another, AIR 1976 SC 1206, an order
passed
in
contempt
jurisdiction
was
challenged by Baradkanta Mishra before
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
observed
that
the
appeal
was
not
maintainable as only those orders or
decisions in which some point is decided or
finding is given in the exercise of
jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for
Contempt an appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act would lie. An
Interlocutory order pertaining purely to the
procedure of the Court, including one
relating
to
maintainability
of
the
proceedings, did not amount to an order
passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish
for content.

10. In Purshotam Dass Goel Vs.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon and
others, AIR 1978 SC 1014, contempt
proceedings were initiated against the
appellant and he challenged the same
before the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court observed that an Appeal shall lie
under Section 19, as a matter of right from
any order or decision of a Bench of the
High Court if the order has been made in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt.
There
may
be
many
interlocutory orders passed in proceedings
and it could not be the intention of the
Legislature to provide for an Appeal to the
higher Court as a matter of right from each
and every such order made by the High
Court. The 'order' or the 'decision' must
be such that it decides some of contentions
raised before the High Court affecting the
right of the party aggrieved. Mere initiation
of proceedings for contempt and issuance
of notice on satisfaction, that the case is a
fit one for drawing a proceeding, does not
decide
any
question.
The
Court
in
Purshotam Dass Goel (supra) made an
observation to the effect that either the
matter may have been decided finally or
even at an interlocutory stage if an order is
made which decides a contention raised by
the Contemnor asking the High Court to
drop the proceedings and High Court
refuses to drop such proceedings; such an
order may be an appealable order.

11. In D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1988 (3) SCC 26. The Appellant had
filed a petition before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court for initiation of
contempt proceedings against the then
Chief Minister of the State. Initially, notice
was issued but after reply was filed, the
High Court dismissed the application for
initiation of contempt proceedings and
discharged the notices. The Appeal was
filed by D.N. Taneja before the Supreme
Court. An objection was raised regarding
its maintainability. The Supreme Court
observed that when the High Court acquits
the Contemnor, the High Court does not
exercise its jurisdiction 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
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punish for contempt under Article 215 of
the Constitution.

In paragraph-12, the Supreme
Court observed:

"12 - - the aggrieved party
under Section 19 (1) can only be the
Contemnor who has been punished for
Contempt of Court".

12. The view taken in D.N. Taneja
(supra) was reiterated by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another,
1996 (4) SCC 411. The Supreme Court
observed that-

"the words "any order" has to be
read with the expression "decision" used
in the sub-section (1) of Section 19 as that
which the High Court passes in exercise of
its jurisdiction to punish for Contempt.
'Any order' is not independent of the
expression 'decision'. They have to be put
in an alternate form say as in 'order' or
'decision'. In either case, it must be in the
nature of punishment for contempt. If the
expression
'any
order'
is
read
independently of 'a decision', then an
Appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of
Section 19, even against any interlocutory
order passed in a proceeding for contempt
by the High Court, which shall lead to a
ridiculous result - ".

13. In all such decisions, the Supreme
Court was dealing with an order of the
High Court that had dropped the contempt
proceeding and the party aggrieved had
filed an Appeal against the dropping of the
contempt proceedings.

14. In R.N. Dey Vs. Bhagyabati
Pramanik, 2000 (4) SCC 400; however,
the Supreme Court observed in paragraph
10 as follows: -

"10. - - - When the Court, either
Suo Moto or on a motion or a reference,
decides
to
take
action
and
initiate
proceedings for contempt, it assumes
jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The
exercise of jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, initiating a proceeding for
contempt, and if the order is passed, not
discharging the rule issued in contempt
proceedings, it would be an order or
decision in exercise of jurisdiction to
punish for contempt. Against such order
appeal would be maintainable." (emphasis
supplied by us)

15. Thereafter, in Modi Telefibres Ltd
Vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary and others,
2005 (7) SCC 40; Supreme Court held that
an Appeal was maintainable against an
order where the appellant had been held
guilty of contempt, even though no
punishment was imposed upon him, but the
order had given him an opportunity to
purge himself for the contempt.

16.

In
Midnapore
People's
Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Chunilal
Nanda, 2006 (5) SCC 399, the Supreme
Court after dealing with the entire law on
the subject and its various decisions held as
follows: -

"11. The position emerging from
these decisions, in regard to appeals
against orders in contempt proceedings
may be summarised as :

(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.
 (ii) Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order, initiating proceeding for contempt,
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1251
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt, nor an order aquitting or
exonerating, the Contemnor, is appealable
under section 19 of the Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. (emphasis supplied)

17. In Parents Association of
Students Vs. M. A. Khan and Another
2009 (2) SCC 641, the Supreme Court in
Paragraph 11 and 12 has observed as under
:-

"11. The controversy as regards
exercise of jurisdiction of the Appellate
Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act is a vexed one. Whereas one
line
of
decisions
beginning
from
Baradakanta Mishra Vs. High Court of
Orissa till Midnapore Peoples Cooperative
Bank Ltd (Supra) is that an Appeal would
be maintainable only when an order of
punishment has been made, in R. N. Dey
Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik(supra), it has
been held to be maintainable if the
jurisdiction is exercised by any court under
the Contempt of Courts Act."

"12. The question, we may
notice has been referred to a three Judge
Bench in Dharam Singh Vs. Guljari Lal,
SLP Civil No. 18852 of 2005 decided on
19.09.2005. We therefore need not decide
the
larger
question,
namely,
maintainability of the appeal under Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 visa-vis maintainability of the special appeal
under the Letters Patent of the High Court,
since the matter has been referred to a
Larger Bench." (emphasis supplied by us)

18. In Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. S.C.
Sekar and others, reported in (2009) 2
SCC 784; Supreme Court was considering
an Appeal filed against an order passed by
the Division Bench entertaining Contempt
Appeal under Section 19 of the Act against
an order passed by the Contempt Judge.
The facts of the case were that in a Suit
filed by an Association of Shareholders of a
Bank (which was a company) before the
Madras High Court. The Court had
restrained the Bank from taking up in its
Annual General Meeting the agenda items
relating to election of new Directors in
place of those retiring by rotation.
However, certain persons were elected in
the AGM as Directors. The plaintiffs filed a
Contempt Petition against the Managing
Director
of
the
bank
for
alleged
disobedience of the interim order passed in
the Suit. The Court in contempt petition
passed an interim order restraining the
Managing Director from implementing the
Resolution relating to election of Directors,
notwithstanding that the persons elected in
the AGM as Directors were not party to the
Suit. The said persons approached the
Division Bench as they were prejudiced by
the interim order passed in contempt
proceedings. The Appeal under Section
19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act was
held by the Division Bench to be
maintainable as the court while sitting in
contempt proceedings had passed an
interim
order,
which
was
without
jurisdiction.

19. The Court observed that apart
from the fact that the appellant did not
approach the Court with clean hands and
was, thus, not entitled to any equitable
relief, the manner in which the interim
order was passed by the Single Judge in
contempt proceedings was not justified.
There was no finding recorded that the
Managing
Director
had
prima
facie
committed contempt. Ordinarily, direction
could
not
be
issued
in
contempt
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings without arriving at a finding as
to how the Managing Director of the Bank
could be said to have flouted the order.
Indisputably,
the
respondents
were
prejudiced by such order passed in
contempt
jurisdiction
and
a
person
aggrieved can move the higher Court. If an
interim order was passed wholly without
jurisdiction,
an
Appeal
would
lie
thereagainst. In a situation where the order
has been passed adverse to the interest of
the Contemnor, an Appeal would be
maintainable,
particularly
where
a
judgement had been passed by Court,
which
is
beyond
jurisdiction.
Even
assuming that an Appeal under Section 19
of the Contempt of Courts Act was
technically not maintainable, having regard
to the fact that the interim injunction was
granted till disposal of the Contempt
Application, it was a judgement within the
meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
of the Madras High Court. Even proceeding
on assumption that the Appeal was not
maintainable, an aggrieved person cannot
be left without a remedy. The Supreme
Court further observed that apart from the
fact that the order passed by the Single
Judge in contempt proceedings was illegal
and without jurisdiction having been passed
without
any
application
of
mind,
furthermore, the same was obtained by the
appellant by suppressing material facts and
the proceedings between the parties,
therefore it was a fit case where the
Supreme Court should refuse to interfere
with the impugned order of the High Court.
It is well settled that the Supreme Court
does not exercise its jurisdiction only
because it is lawful to do so. The Supreme
Court dismissed the appeal with a cost of
Rs.50,000/-.

20. In Dharam Singh Vs. Guljari
Lal(Supra), the Supreme Court has passed
a short order, referring the matter to the
Chief Justice for Constitution of a Larger
Bench. It has observed as follows:-

"the question as regards to
interpretation
of
Section
19
of
the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 arises for
consideration in this Appeal. Our attention
has been drawn to the decision of this
Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Mehboob S. Allibhoy and Another 1996 (4)
SCC 411; wherein a two Judge Bench has
taken the view that no appeal lies under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act
against any interlocutory order passed by
the High Court stating that the words: any
'order' must be read with the expression
"decision" used in the Subsection, so as to
exclude any interlocutory order of the High
Court from the scope of Contempt Appeal.
However, in R.N. Dey and Others Vs.
Bhagbati Pramanik and Others, 2000 (4)
SCC 400. Another two Judge Bench of this
Court has held that where, after initiation
of a proceeding of Contempt, an order is
passed without discharging the rule issued
under the provision of Section 19, it would
be an order or decision in exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for Contempt, and
against such order an appeal shall be
maintainable.

It appears that various High
Courts have taken different views on
interpretation of the judgement in Mehboob
S. Allibhoy (Supra) as some of the High
Courts are of the opinion that even if a
direction is issued to the contemnor by way
of interlocutory order, the same would
attract the provisions contained in Section
19; as such an order, or a 'decision' of the
High Court would be in exercise of its
discretion to punish for Contempt.

We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the matter being of some importance
requires consideration by a Larger Bench.
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1253
Accordingly, we direct that the matter may
be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
for necessary orders.

In the meantime, there shall be a
stay of the operation of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge."

21. In ECL Finance Limited Vs.
Hari Kishen Shankr Ji, Gudipati and
Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 142, the
Supreme Court was considering a case
where the Single Judge had only admitted
Contempt Petition and had issued notice to
the respondents. It is at that stage, the
respondents had filed an appeal under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court
had admitted the appeal despite objections
regarding
maintainability,
leaving
the
question of maintainability of the appeal to
be considered at the time of final hearing.
The appellant approached the Court against
such order passed by the Division Bench.
The respondent referred to decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Dey Vs.
Bhagyawati,
Pramanik
(supra)
and
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank (Supra).

22. The Supreme Court distinguished
R.N. Dey by observing in Paragraph-4 that
R.N. Dey was a case where the High Court
declined to accept unconditional apology
tendered by the Contemner. It was in that
context that the Supreme Court had held
that the Contemner could file an appeal
since he was otherwise entitled to be
discharged in case, the unconditional
apology had been accepted. In other words,
the Supreme Court was of the view that the
decision to reject the unconditional apology
and proceed further was an order or
decision
to
proceed
to
punish
the
Contemner. Hence it was held that such a
decision or order was appealable.

23. Similarly, the Supreme Court also
distinguished the judgement rendered in
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank (supra) by
saying that an appeal under Section 19 is
maintainable if in the impugned order an
issue has been decided or a direction has
been issued relating to the merits of the
dispute
between
the
parties
while
exercising
Contempt
jurisdiction.
It
referred to Paragraph-39 of the judgement
rendered in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank to
say that it is a different matter if the Court
while passing an order, decided some
dispute raised before it by the Contemner
asking it to drop the proceedings on one
ground or the other. In such a situation, an
appeal would be maintainable against a
notice to show cause. The question of
satisfying the Court by showing cause that
the
respondent-Contemner
had
not
committed any contempt had not been
considered by the Court. The Supreme
Court rejected the argument made by the
learned counsel for the respondent that
before issuing notice the Single Judge had
considered the merits of the case and had
already made up his mind to punish the
respondent and therefore an appeal would
lie.

24. The Supreme Court observed that-

"....observations made by the
Single Judge while issuing notice in the
Contempt Petition is only for prima facie
satisfaction as to whether the Contempt
Petition needs to be considered on merits.
Only after such a preliminary stage notice
can be issued. Now, it is open to the
respondent to file the reply, and after
considering the defence, the learned Single
Judge will have to take a call as to whether
it is a case to be proceeded against for
punishing the respondent. In case such a
decision is taken by the High Court, it is at
that stage that the respondent gets a right
to file an appeal before the Division Bench
in terms of section 19 (1) (a) of the Act..."
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The question before us in this
Appeal
is
with
regard
to
the
maintainability. Whether an Appeal under
Section 19 of the Act is maintainable
against an order passed by the Contempt
Judge
framing
charges
against
the
Contemnor in contempt jurisdiction?

26. The Supreme Court in aforecited
case of Midnapore (Supra) had taken the
view
that
Contempt
Application
is
maintainable
only
against
an
order
imposing punishment. There are a few
judgements of the Allahabad High Court,
which however take a different view
altogether. In Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs.
R.K. Singh and Another 2004 Criminal
Law Journal Allahabad 4817, a Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court after
referring to various judgements of the
Supreme Court observed in paragraph 15 as
under:-

"15. We have carefully examined
the expression namely "execution of the
punishment or order appealed against"...
From careful reading of this expression, we
are of the view that the expression in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish a
contempt, should not be interpreted as
"imposing a punishment for contempt".
Accordingly, in our view, the language
used is more closer to the meaning, that an
Appeal shall lie from any order or decision,
which is made by the Court when the
jurisdiction of the High Court is used for
punishing a person for contempt. It may be
appreciated from the introduction of the
word punishment or order in Section
19(2)(a) of the Act. This is because under
Clause (a) of Subsection (2) of Section 19
there is power of the Appellate Court not
only to stay the execution of punishment,
but also to stay an order in respect of
which an Appeal has been filed. The law is
now well settled that the Court must
presume that the legislature does not waste
words and as such every word in the statute
should be presumed to have necessity of
user in the statute, and must be given effect
to consistent with its meaning. Therefore, it
would be difficult for us to hold that an
Appeal lies only against an order of
punishment."
(emphasis supplied)

27. In paragraph 16, the High Court
went on to observe thus -

"16. From the discussion made
here in above, it is pellucid that an Appeal
under Section 19(1) of the Act shall lie not
only
against
an
order
imposing
punishment, but also from an order or
direction made by the Court in the exercise
of
its
contempt
jurisdiction-
- -".
(emphasis supplied)

28. In T. George Vs. Vijai Kumar
Srivastava, 2003 (5) AWC 4247, a Division
Bench of the High Court was dealing with
the issue which is before us. That is,
whether an Appeal would lie against an
order framing a charge. After the charges
were framed the Contemnor filed an
Appeal and a preliminary objection was
raised that no Appeal lies against this order.
The Division Bench of this Court after
referring to Purushottam Das Goel(Supra)
held that an Appeal lies. The observations
made by the Division Bench in Paragraph
14 are being quoted here in below:-

"14. - - - from the aforesaid
observation of the Supreme Court, it is,
therefore, clear, that an appeal shall lie
against an order under Section 19 of the
Act, even where the orders were passed at
some intermediate stage in a proceeding.
As we have discussed already, where some
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1255
bone of contention was raised by the
applicant before the learned Contempt
Judge is decided and, therefore, it cannot
be said that no Appeal lies against such
order. The view expressed by the Supreme
Court in the decision has also taken help of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Baradakanta Mishra (Supra) which
has also been discussed by us in the
following paragraphs of this order."
(emphasis supplied by us)

29. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Santosh
Kumar Srivastava reported in 2023 (3)
ADJ 354, a Division Bench of this High
Court while noticing judgement rendered in
S.M.A.
Abdi
Vs.
Private
Secretary
Brotherhood, 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3106 and
the decision in Tarun Kumar Agarwal Vs.
Executive Engineer, UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, 2013 (101) Allahabad. Law
reports 46; held Contempt Appeal to be
maintainable under Section 19, if the
Contempt
Judge
after
exchange
of
pleadings refuses to discharge contempt
notices and records a finding of the
Contemnors being prima facie guilty of
Contempt of the Writ Court's Order.

30. The Division Bench of this Court
in Sanjay Kumar (Supra) summarized the
legal position as per law settled by the
Supreme Court, in paragraph 15 as under: -

"(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, (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 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 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 exercise of "jurisdiction to punish
for contempt" and, therefore, no Appeal
under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. The only exception is if 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 incidental or inextricably
connected directions. The order or decision
must be such that it decides some of the
contentions raised before the High Court
affecting the right of the party aggrieved.
(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 Appal (if the
order was of learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra court
Appeal) or seeking Special Leave to Appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. (vi) In other cases, if the Court while
passing an order, decided some disputes
raised before it, by proceeding on one
ground or the other, then, in a given
situation,
an
appeal
would
be
maintainable, even against notice to show
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cause. (vii) There cannot be any doubt that
in a situation where an order has been
passed adverse to the interest of the
Contemnor,
an
appeal
would
be
maintainable, particularly where an order
has been passed by a court which is beyond
its
jurisdiction.
(viii)
Exercise
of
jurisdiction
to
punish
or
contempt
commences with the initiation of a
proceeding for contempt, and if the order is
passed, not discharging the rule issued in
contempt proceedings, it would be an order
or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish a contempt. Against such an order
appeal would be maintainable.

31. Having summarized the settled
legal
position
on
the
question
of
maintainability of the Appeal under Section
19 of the Act of 1970, the Division Bench
in Sanjay Kumar (supra) proceeded to
examine
the
impugned
Order
dated
14.09.2022.

"We have gone through the order
and find that the Court below has recorded
a finding in the second paragraph of the
order that the officer is totally in contempt
of the order passed by the Writ Court dated
04.12.2017. In the fourth paragraph of the
order, the Contempt Court has again
recorded
a
finding
that
without
commenting upon the decision dated
06.11.2018 by which the representation of
the respondent was disposed of by the
Managing Director; the Contempt Court
observed such decision to be totally in the
teeth of the Order passed by the Court on
04.12.2017.
Thereafter,
the
Contempt
Court
issued
a
direction
that
last
opportunity is granted to the opposite party
to revisit its order and take a decision.
Thereafter, in the last paragraph, it stated
that in case no decision is taken by the
Board till the next date, the Court will be
compelled to proceed against the officers
concerned."

32. The Division Bench in Sanjay
Kumar (supra) further observed that:-

"Finding
so
recorded
and
directions issued and the observations
made in the order dated 14.09.2022 as
noted above, leaves no manner of doubt
that the Contempt Court has held the
officers
to
be
totally
in
Contempt.
Therefore,
the
Appeal
would
be
maintainable
in
view
of
the
law
summarised in paragraph 15 (i) and (iii)
above. That apart, the Managing Director
had taken a decision dated 06.11.2018,
which could have been challenged by the
respondent/ contempt applicant before the
appropriate forum. We have specifically
asked learned counsel for the respondent
whether the order of the Managing
Director has been challenged by the
respondent and he has replied that it has
not been challenged as yet, and the
respondent proposes to challenge it by
filing a petition before the appropriate
forum.

Under the circumstances, the
Contempt Judge travelled beyond its power
to issue directions to the authorities
concerned to revisit its order and take a
decision.
Hence,
The
Appeal
is
maintainable in view of the settled position
above.

So far as the impugned Order is
concerned, it would be suffice to observe
that in the impugned interlocutory order,
findings have been recorded that the
officers are totally in Contempt. Therefore,
the impugned order is unsustainable.

33. A Division Bench of this Court in
the matter of Jai Karan Lal Verma Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Pathak and others reported
3 All. Rakesh Kumar District Inspector of School Gonda Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh & Ors. 1257
in 2008 (1) AWC Page 61 has categorically
held that appeal under Section 19 (1)
against order of Contempt Judge holding
the Contemner prima facie guilty of
contempt and framing charges is not
maintainable, as such, orders are not the
orders imposing punishment.

34. In Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh Vs.
Dr. Sandeep Kumar and Others, 2020
SCC online Allahabad 211, a Division
Bench of the Court was considering several
Contempt Appeals filed under Section 19
of the Act against orders of the Single
Judge,
framing
charge
against
the
appellants and calling upon them to file the
response, if any, on or before the next date.
The counsel for the respondents had cited
Midnapore
Peoples
Cooperative
Bank(Supra) to argue that Contempt
Appeal is not maintainable. The learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
had pointed out that Midnapore Peoples
Cooperative Bank (Supra) had not referred
to previous decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of R.N. Dey Vs. Bhagyabati
Pramanik, which had held that orders
passed by the Court in exercise of
jurisdiction to punish, even at intermediate
stage maybe challenged under Section 19.
He had argued that the word 'or' used
between 'order' and 'decision' being
disjunctive, the logical conclusion would
be
that
even
though
an
Order
of
Punishment would not have been passed,
yet an Appeal under Section 19 would be
maintainable in respect of orders prior to
the Order of Punishment. The Senior
Counsel had placed reliance upon E.C.L.
Finance Limited Vs. Harikrishan Shankar
Ji Gudipati and T George Joseph(Supra) in
support of contention. The learned Senior
Counsel also placed reliance upon Sadhna
Upadhyay Vs. State of UP 2009 (65) ACC
64 (FB).

35. The Division Bench of this Court
however in Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh
(Supra) has observed that order or decision
may be separated by a disjunctive word but
they should be read ejusdem generis. The
word 'order' has been used to mean orders
other than final decisions, which may
decide a matter of moment; for example, in
the Sadhna Upadhaya case, the assumption
of
jurisdiction,
which
was
seriously
questioned by the appellant on several
grounds. Such orders may not be decisions
finally terminating the proceedings but may
amount to a decision of moment widely
affecting the contemnor. However, if the
order is only an order framing a charge
simplicitor, it cannot be said to have widely
affected the rights of the Contemnor.
Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in
nature. While framing a charge, it is
inevitable for the Court to delve into the
merits of the case which does not affect any
substantive rights of the contemnor as
opportunity is given to the contemnor to
controvert and place its defence against the
proposed charge. Thus, order framing
charge simplicitor, is only a reflection of a
prima facie opinion of the Court as to the
alleged contempt. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant Dr
Ashwini Kumar Singh (Supra) had pointed
out paragraph 7 of E.C.L. Finance Ltd
(Supra) which referred to the fact situation
in the said case where only notice was
issued in the contempt after prima facie
satisfaction, that Contempt Petition needed
to be considered on merits.