- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent as well as under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for which office has raised objection about the maintainability of this L.P.A. because of the reason that the appellants have challenged the order dated 7.1.2013, by which in the contempt proceedings initiated suo motu by the Court, order was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest (non bailable) against the contemnor, Shree Prakash Singh @ Shree Babu and same order was also passed for the appellant no. 2, Shekhar Singh. In addition to the above, further direction was issued that contemnor no. 2, Shekhar Singh, was evading his presence, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. be initiated and thereafter process under section 83 Cr.P.C. be issued.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State also vehemently submitted that this L.P.A. is not maintainable, in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also pointed out that the Registrar General of the High Court has wrongly been added as respondent no. 1. It has further been submitted that the L.P.A. is not supported by any affidavit of the appellants but an affidavit has been filed by one, Reshma Singh, daughter of one of the appellants and therefore, it is also clear that the L.P.A. is not maintainable.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Midnapore Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., 2006 5 SCC 399, wherein the issues have been considered in detail and specifically it has been held that neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt, nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt, nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under section 19 and in special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is specifically held that an appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. The same view had been taken earlier also in various judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgments delivered in cases of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy & Ano., 1996 AIR(SC) 2131 and of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors., 1996 6 SCC 291. Division Bench of this Court also followed the same view in the case of Bashisth Narayan @ Bashisth Narain Prasad Vs. Sri A.K. Upadhyaya, 2005 1 JCR 466.;