- (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the order of the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court dated 4.9.2006 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the matter may not be referred for initiation of proceeding for Criminal Contempt of Court for deliberate concealment of material facts/ statement of half facts and for misleading the Court.
(2.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that if an order is not a final order but even if notice is issued an appeal under Section 19 of the Act would lie and placed reliance on the following: 1. Barad Kanta v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra : 1975CriLJ1 ; 2. Purshotam Das Gael v. Justice B.S. Dhillon : 1978CriLJ772 ; 3. Union of India v. Mario Cabral E Sa : AIR1982SC691 ; 4. D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26 : 1988 (2) AWC 1133 (SC); 5. State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy : 1996CriLJ2879 ; 6. J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar : AIR1997SC113 ; 7. R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Paramanik : (2000)4SCC400 ;8. Kunwar Narendra Narain Singh v. V. Mathur 2004 (1) ESC 91;9. Smt. Subhawati Devi v. R.K. Singh 2004 (3) ESC 1853 : 2004 (3) AWC 2414;10. V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju 2004 (13) SCC 610 and 11. Modi Telefibres Ltd. v. Sujit Kumar Choudhary 2005 (7) SCC 40. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that no appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) against the order 'merely calling upon a party to show cause as to why the matter be not referred for initiation of a criminal contempt. Section 19 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Whether an appeal would lie against any order or decision of the Court including interlocutory orders came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra (supra) and it was held that interlocutory orders pertaining purely to the procedure of the Court are not appealable under Section 19 of the Act. In Purushotam. Dass Goel v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Dhilion and Ors. (supra) following Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa High Court (supra) was held that the order rejecting a motion or a reference and declining to initiate a proceeding for contempt amount to refuse to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act. It further held as under: In our considered Judgment, an order merely initiating the proceeding without anything further, does not decide anything against the alleged contemnor and cannot be appealed against as a matter of right under Section 19.
(3.) SIMILAR view has been expressed in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Union of India and Ors. etc. v. Mario Cabral E Sa (supra). After considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court a Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Krishan Goswami v. Suresh Chand Jain 1994 AWC 82, has held that an appeal lies from a decision as well as from an order under Section 19 of the Act. Decision means 'final decision of the contempt application'. However, since the word 'order' has been used in the same provision, it would refer to some thing other than final judgment and, therefore, an appeal may be maintainable against an order, which does not finally dispose of the contempt proceeding, but such order must be one, which is passed in exercise of jurisdiction, to punish for contempt.;