ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28 of 1992 has been filed against the order dated July 10, 1992, by which , the contempt petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) MR. U. N. Bhandari, learned counsel, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that no appeal lies against the order, by which, the petition for contempt has been dismissed. It is submitted that since the contempt petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, he had no right of appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1971'), as this right is only available to a person, who has been punished for having committed contempt of the order of the Court. It is submitted by Dr. M. M. Tewari, learned counsel, that this Court and the Supreme Court are courts of record, therefore, apart from the powers provided under the Act, 1971, they can exercise their inherent powers also. It is further submitted that the Court can take notice of the contempt of court, even suo motu, without any petition filed in this regard. In this connection, he has referred to Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also referred to R. L. Kapur vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1), in which, it was held by the Apex Court that period of limitation prescribed under Section 70 of the Penal Code does not apply to recovery of fine imposed by the High Court for its contempt. It was also held that the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of its order arises under Article 215 of the Constitution and no Act of a Legislature could take away that jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 25 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply. A reference was made to Manilal Singh vs. Dr. H. Borobabu Singh and another This was a matter, in which, a Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly acted as Authority under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and in that capacity, passed certain orders, which gave rise to the contempt action. He did not appear personally before the Court, in spite of the Court's orders and claimed immunity. It was held that this was a contemptuous conduct and the Government of India was directed to produce the contemner before the Court on March 23,1993. We have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the authorities, regarding inherent powers of this Court to punish the contemners, apart from the powers as provided under the Act, 1971. However, the matter, under consideration is whether the appellant has right to file an appeal, even though his petition for contempt has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of Section 19 shows that an appeal lies as of right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, where the order is passed by a single Judge, to a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges and to the Supreme Court, if the order is passed by a Bench of the High Court. Thus, it is clear that it is only the person, who has been punished for contempt, has right to file an appeal. It may be pointed out that if an appeal is entertained against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court, who has refused to initiate any action for the alleged contempt, it would, in other words, mean that, in the first instance, the High Court has refused to take action and the same High Court is again taking action for contempt. Therefore, once the attention of the High Court was drawn towards the alleged contempt and it has refused to take any action, then it would mean that the matter has come to an end, so far as the High Court is concerned. No doubt, the person aggrieved has a remedy and he can still move the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal under the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kuldip Narain Lal vs. Mahendra Pal Jain (3), in which, it was held that no appeal lies under Section 19 (1) of the Act, 1971, against an order of the High Court, refusing to take action for contempt and the same is not maintainable. The remedy is by way of Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that this Special Appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. .;