# Tarun Kumar Agrawal v. The Executive Engineer

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 877
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-12
- **Case number:** Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2013
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad, Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarun-kumar-agrawal-v-the-executive-engineer-42636
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 19-
Contempt Appeal-against order of issue
notices to maintain status quo on spotheld-not
maintainable-in
absence
of
punishment order.

Held: Para-14 & 15

## Text

2 All] Tarun Kumar Agarwal Vs. The Executive Engineer
877
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2013

Tarun Kumar Agrawal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Executive Engineer ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gautam, Sri Ashish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
.......

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 19-
Contempt Appeal-against order of issue
notices to maintain status quo on spotheld-not
maintainable-in
absence
of
punishment order.

Held: Para-14 & 15
14. As already observed by us, the order
impugned
does
not
award
any
punishment to the appellant and is
therefore clearly covered by condition I
aforementioned. Besides, the direction
issued in the order under appeal is not
one which would bring it within the
ambit of condition IV above.

15. In view of the preceding discussions
and also considering the fact that no
order of punishment has been passed by
the
impugned
order,
we
have
no
reservations in holding that the instant
Contempt Appeal is not maintainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J)

1. This Contempt Appeal under
Section 19 of the Contempt of the Courts Act
has been filed against the order dated
06.05.2013.

2. The facts relevant for the instant
appeal are as follows:

Plot number F-15 (40), Shastri
Nagar, Meerut was allotted to one P.S.
Mahesh by the U.P. Avas Evan Vikas
Praishad. The original allottee applied for
and obtained sanction of map no:229
dated 28.04.2012 from the U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut for raising
a residential house over the aforesaid plot.
On an inspection, it was discovered that
the constructions on the spot were not
being raised in accordance with the
sanctioned plan. A show cause notice was
therefore issued on 28.07.2012 to the
recorded owner to show cause why the
unauthorised
constructions
be
not
demolished. Since none appeared on the
date fixed in pursuance of the notice
aforesaid, an order for the demolition of
the unauthorised constructions was passed
by the Competent Authority on 8.8.2012.

4. After the order of the demolition
was passed, two representations were made
by the appellant. The first on 14.08.2012
wherein
it
was
admitted
that
the
constructions being raised on the spot were
at variance with the sanctioned plan while
by
the
second
representation
dated
28.05.2012 it was intimated that the
appellant had purchased the plot in question
from the original allottee, P.S. Mahesh.

5. The appellant challenged the
demolition order by means of a Writ
Petition No. 5391 of 2012, wherein a
Division Bench on 10.10.2012, passed an
order directing the parties to maintain
status quo as regards the constructions in
question.

6. The Executive Engineer, U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut filed
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1456 of
2013 alleging therein that the order of status
quo was being violated by the appellant and
he was continuing with the constructions.
Photographs of the constructions made in
defiance of the order of status quo, snapped
in November, 2012 were annexed along
with the contempt application. It was further
stated that a notice dated 13.12.2012 was
issued to the appellant, calling upon him to
stop the construction work being carried out
in defiance of the interim order dated
10.10.2012. In response to this notice,
Tarun Kumar Agrawal submitted a reply
that he was only getting the finishing work
done, that no work was being done as far as
the disputed construction was concerned
and that he had not been restrained from
continuing the work in the rest of the house
apart from the disputed constructions.

7.

The
Contempt
application
aforesaid was entertained and notices
were issued to the opposite party in the
contempt petition (appellant herein) by
this Court fixing, 06.05.2013.

8. On the date fixed, a counter
affidavit filed by Sri Tarun Kumar
Agarwal was taken on record and the
order impugned was passed.

9. We have heard Sri Gautam,
learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the record.

10. The stamp reporter has reported
that the instant appeal is not maintainable.

11. A perusal of the order impugned
shows that it grants time to the counsel for
filing a rejoinder affidavit in response to the
counter affidavit filed by the contemnor and
further directions contained in the said order
have been issued only to ensure compliance
of the order of status quo passed by the writ
court on 10.10.2012. No order of punishment
has been passed.

12. We have also perused the counter
affidavit filed by the appellant in the
contempt petition as also the affidavit in
support of the stay application in this appeal
wherein the appellant has admitted that
construction work was being carried out by
him. However, the entire thrust of the
averments is to justify the construction work
being carried out. The object of invoking
the appellate jurisdiction appears to be to
obtain
some
order
or
observation,
interpreting the order, contempt whereof is
alleged, which would absolve the appellant
of the contempt notice even before the
contempt Court has applied its mind to the
decide the matter finally. This, to our mind,
is impermissible.

13. Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, invoked by the appellant
reads as follows:

"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 ?....

The Apex Court considering the import
of the aforesaid provision of law in the case
of Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Versus Chunnilal Nanda reported in
(2006) 5 SCC 399 has held in paragraph 11
of the said judgment as follows:

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

I. An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order of
2 All] Sudhakar Verma Vs. Mahendra Kumar and Ors.
879
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 in 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 CC Act. 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
the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for
contempt") and, therefore, not appealable
under section 19 of the CC Act. The only
exception is where 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
the incidental or inextricably connected
directions.

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 the
contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intracourt appeal (if the order was of a Single
Judge and there is a provision for an intracourt appeal), or by seeing special leave
to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases)."

14. As already observed by us, the
order impugned does not award any
punishment to the appellant and is
therefore clearly covered by condition I
aforementioned. Besides, the direction
issued in the order under appeal is not one
which would bring it within the ambit of
condition IV above.

15. In view of the preceding
discussions and also considering the fact
that no order of punishment has been
passed by the impugned order, we have
no reservations in holding that the instant
Contempt Appeal is not maintainable.

16. The contempt appeal is therefore
dismissed as not maintainable.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Revision 77 of 2007

Sudhakar Verma

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Mahendra Kumar and Ors ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avdhesh Kumar, Sri Ankur Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sushil Awasthi

C.P.C.-Section
115-
Civil
Revisionagainst order for return of plaint due to