- (1.) THE Appellant had filed an application to initiate contempt proceeding for non -compliance of the interim order dated 22.11.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 34719 of 2001. This contempt application was dismissed on 13.9.2006. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) THE operative portion of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have committed any wilful or deliberate disobedience and further it would not be appropriate for this Court to proceed in the contempt matter as the writ petition is still pending and is contested by the opposite party. Thus, in view of the facts aforesaid and keeping in view the ratio of the decision in the case of Jammu & Kashmir v. Mohd. Yaqoob, the notices are discharged and the contempt petition is consigned to records at this stage without prejudice to the rights of the applicant in the pending writ petition. The single judge has discharged the contempt notices on the finding that there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order and consigned it to the record room. It is consistent view of our Court that no appeal lies against such an order before division bench. It can only be challenged before the Supreme Court. (See Smt. Subhawati Devi v. R.K. Singh : 2004 (3) AWC 2414; Maheshwari Prasad Mishra v. Smt. Achla Khanna, 2006 (6) ADJ 373; Hemendra Swaroop Bhatnagar v. P. Gosain : 2007 (1) AWC 1045; and Shravana Kumar v. Atul Kumar Gupta : 2009 (2) AWC 1433.
(3.) THE counsel for the Appellant submits that the present appeal is maintainable. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Midnapore People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, reported in 2007 -JCR -1 -209/2006 -CLT ¬102 -452 (the Midnapore -Bank case).;