R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the appellants against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.5.1995, the concluding portion of which is as under : "In view of my discussions made above, I hold that the opposite parties have flouted the Hon'ble Courts' directions and the opposite parties are guilty of the contempt of Court. However, the present Director General of Police was not a party to the Selection Committee and in his affidavit it has been made abundantly clear that he was not informed of the Court's order earlier as he was not holding the post of the D.G.P., U. P.. Lucknow and as such he should be exonerated from the alleged charge of contempt of Court and he will abide by any decision of this Hon'ble Court. I shall consider his case regarding his punishment at all, if any, afterwards. I direct the opposite parties to promote Kamla Prasad Rai as directed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. L. Yadav and Kamla Prasad Rai should be given all benefits of promotion including his salary and seniority accordingly. Regarding the compliance of the Hon'ble Court's Order, the opposite parties are directed to file an affidavit by 17.5.1995. Respondent No. 1 is also directed to attend the Court on that date, if an affidavit of compliance is not filed." By the above judgment, the learned Judge has held that the appellants had committed the contempt of Court by flouting the judgment/directions given by this Court; but no sentence was awarded and an opportunity was given to them to comply with the orders of this Court.
(2.) SRI V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has made two submissions in support of this appeal, namely, (0 the appellants have complied with the earlier judgment/order of this Court and. therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to declare the appellants guilty of the Contempt of Court ; and (ii) it was not open to the learned singe Judge to go into the comparative merits of the claims of the respondent and others. SRI Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has. apart from disputing the aforesaid contentions, contended that this appeal is not maintainable. As a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is necessary that the same should be decided at the thresh hold. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the appeal can be filed only under Section 19 of the said Act. In such a case Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules will not apply. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, so far as it is relevant, is as under: "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- (a) where the order or decision Is that of a singe Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court, (b) where the order of decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall He to the Supreme Court." A Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Krishan Goswami v. Suresh Chand Jain, 1994 AWC 82, has held that against a decision of a learned single Judge holding a person guilty of Contempt of Court, an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act even though no sentence has been awarded. Relevant extract from the said decision of the Division Bench is as under : "From the above, it would be seen that appeal lies from a "decision" as well as from an "order". Decision, in our opinion, would be final decision of the contempt application. When a separate word 'order' has been used in the same clause, it would appear that it refers to something other than the final Judgment. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that an appeal is maintainable even against an order, which does not finally dispose of the contempt proceedings. However, every interim order passed in the contempt proceedings is not appealable under the above provision. Only that order is appealable which is passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In the present case before proceeding to issue directions in the operative portion, the learned single Judge has recorded finding that he was fully satisfied that Sri Jai Krishna Goswami and Sri Vijay Krishna Goswami had deliberately. In defiance of the orders of law courts and their undertaking continued to retain the possession of the disputed premises. It has also been observed ; "Their conduct is reprehensible and they are liable to be punished for contempt and also the premises, in these circumstances, is liable to be got vacated from them through some other machinery in accordance with law. (Emphasised) From this, it would appear that the learned single Judge was satisfied that contempt of Court had been committed by the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order under appeal was not passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. We are accordingly of the opinion that the present appeal is maintainable. The view taken by us has the support of a Division Bench of the Court in Simesh Sachdev v. Baldev Raj. 1989 ALJ 928. In paragraph 10 of the report it has been reported : "From the above, it will be seen that there is no total bar on an appeal against an order passed at an intermediate stage. It will depend upon the nature of contention raised and the manner in which the same has been disposed of by the Court. In case a contention which goes to the very root of jurisdiction is raised and the same Is turned down, certainly it must give rise to a right of appeal under Section 19 (1)."
(3.) IN the State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another, JT 1996 (6) SC 151. the relevant extract of which is reproduced below, the Supreme Court has held that unless the 'order' or 'decision imposes a punishment for contempt, appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable : "On a plain reading. Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. IN other words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provided that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The words 'any order' has to be read with the expression 'decision' used in said sub-section which the High Court passed in exercise of its Jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 'Any order' is not INdependent of tire expression 'decision'. They have been put in an alternative form saying 'order or 'decision'. IN either case, it must be IN the nature of punishment for contempt If the expression 'any order' is read independently of the 'decision' then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of Section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result" (Emphasis supplied). In the instant case, the learned single Judge held that the appellants are guilty of contempt of Court as they have flouted this Court's order passed earlier. After holding as above, the learned Judge gave opportunity to the appellants to comply with the orders of this Court. There is no order Imposing punishment on the appellants. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court In State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another (supra), this appeal Is not maintainable, because by the impugned order/judgment, no punishment has been imposed on the appellants. The law laid down by this Court in Vijay Krishna Goswami v. Suresh Chand Jain (supra), being contrary to what is laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy (supra), is no more a good law and stands overruled.;