- (1.) Heard both sides.
(2.) The Registry has raised an objection that this appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The appellant filed an application under the Contempt of Courts Act. His complaint was that his retiral benefits have not been given in spite of direction in that behalf. It was found that the retiral benefits had been paid. Then it was pointed out by the appellant that there was a direction for payment of interest in the original judgment rendered and that has not been complied with and that amounts to contempt of Court and action must be taken. The learned single Judge, taking note of the circumstances prevailing in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and the further fact that the financial affairs relating to that Corporation were being monitored by the .Supreme Court in a proceeding pending before that Court, declined to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act merely on the ground that interest had not been paid. Thus the contempt of Court proceeding was dropped. This is sought to be challenged in this appeal.
(3.) Section 19(1) of th'e Contempt of Courts Act suggests that an appeal would lie as of right against an order imposing punishment in a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. Prima facie, it does not appear that the person who brings to the notice of the Court that contempt of Court has been committed, has a right of appeal against refusal of the Court to take action as it is well known that the contempt of Court proceeding is one between the Court and the contemner and the role of the appellant herein is only that of an informant bringing to the notice of the Court that the order of this Court has not been complied with. It is left to the Court to take action or not to take action. It is within its discretion and it was dependent on the circumstances assessed as a whole. If in such a situation, a learned single'Judge decides not to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, it cannot be said that a person like the appellant, the petitioner in the contempt of Court case, can be considered to be an aggrieved person so as to justify the filing of an appeal. Thus, on both grounds, we uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Registry and reject this appeal as not maintainable. Order Accordingly.;