Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. - (1.) The alleged contemnor Mr. T. George Joseph, Principal Secretary, Tax Registration, Government of U.P., Lucknow is the appellant before us. He files this appeal against an order of a learned Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction in which the learned Judge after considering the allegations made in the application for contempt has framed a charge which is as follows:- That you failed to follow the directions given by the Division Bench of this court on 7-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38807 of 2000 and connected writ petitions in preparing the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector Grade-II and thereby wilfully disobeyed the above order of this court." After framing the charge the learned Contempt Judge also directed the appellant to produce evidence in his defence of the charge by affidavit within three weeks.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the private-respondent saying that no appeal lies against the impugned order in view of the fact that there was no final decision of the matter. According to the learned counsel for the private-respondent, an appeal shall lie against only those order or decisions in which -some point was decided or finding given in the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for contempt. Learned counsel for the private-respondent further submitted that from the impugned order it could not be said that the learned Judge has initiated the proceeding to punish for contempt. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court, the first of which is reported in Barada Kanta Mistra v. Orissa High Court The next decision on which the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on is the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahbood S. Allibhoy and another and also another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Dass Goel v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Dhillon and others. Relying on these decisions the learned counsel for the private-respondent submitted before us that no appeal lies against the impugned order.
(3.) Sri Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor, refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the private-respondent. According to Sri Upadhyay an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order as from the impugned order it appears that cognizance of the contempt proceeding has been taken and a contempt proceeding has been initiated and finally by the impugned order the learned Contempt Judge has framed a charge against the alleged contemnor and thereby directed the alleged contemnor to produce evidence in support of his defence. Sri Upadhyay has taken us through certain paragraphs of the application for discharge filed by the alleged contemnor and sought to argue that from the impugned order it will be apparent that it was really the initiation of the contempt proceedings to punish for contempt. In support of his contention Sri Upadhyay relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Dey and others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others.;