AB GANI BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order impugned dated 3.9.2009, CMP No. 2674/2001, filed for initiating contempt proceeding against Respondent No. 4 therein, has been dismissed being misconceived and not maintainable. Aggrieved thereof, instant appeal has been filed, non maintainability of which warrants its dismissal for the reasons to follow:

(2.) The appeal against the order dated 3.9.2009, by virtue of which CMP for initiating contempt proceedings, has been dismissed, on the face of it is not maintainable. In terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, appeal can lie only when in exercise of contempt jurisdiction any punishment is passed. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153/2007 decided on 16.3.2007, that too in the case of the Appellant titled Abdul Gani Bhat v. State and Ors.

(3.) The position vis-a-vis maintainability of the appeal has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment , BARADAKANTA MISHRA V. JUSTICE GATIKRUSHNA MISRA, C J OF ORISSA H C, 1974 AIR(SC) 2255, wherein it has been held that "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 Sub-section (1) and no appeal would lie against it as of right under that provision.