Intra-Court Appeal Not Maintainable Against Single Judge's Order Declining To Initiate Contempt Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order of the Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor. The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that no appeal is maintainable against dropping contempt proceedings against the contemnor under Section 19 of...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order of the Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that no appeal is maintainable against dropping contempt proceedings against the contemnor under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the remedy lies under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court.
Further, referring to Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the Bench noted thus:
“…an appeal is maintainable only on those contingencies wherein the Contempt jurisdiction has been exercised while touching the merit of the controversy or dispute between the parties for the purposes of implementation of the judgment or order and the same has been held to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of the power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution.”
With this, the division bench dismissed an intra-court appeal filed against the judgment and order (dated March 17, 2023) passed by the Single Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction, wherein the Judge returned the finding that the opposite parties (SDM Veer Bahadur Yadav and another) had not committed contempt.
The case in brief
It was the case of the petitioners that in a PIL plea filed by them, the HC passed an order (on September 7, 2022) granting them the liberty to approach the appropriate forum under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for the removal of encroachments on the public land.
However, it was their further case, despite the fact that the appellants-writ petitioners represented their cause before the competent authority on 3 occasions, no action was taken at the level of the opposite parties.
The inaction of the opposite parties prompted them to institute a contempt petition alleging disobedience of the orders of the Writ-Court, however, the same was dismissed by the Single Judge on March 17, 2023.
Consequently, they moved the instant intra-court appeal wherein they argued that a clear-cut case of contempt is made out against the opposite parties, but the Single Judge erred in law in declining to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
High Court’s observations
At the outset, the Division bench referred to the Apex Court’s rulings in the cases of Baradakant Mishra vs. Justice Gatikrushna Misra (1974), D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal (1988), State of Maharashtra vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another (1996) and Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy vs. State of West Bengal and others 2015 wherein it was held that no appeal is maintainable against an order dropping proceeding for contempt or refusing to initiate a proceeding for contempt.
The Court also referred to Apex Court’s ruling in the Midnapore Peoples’ Coop case wherein, the top court had taken note of the earlier decisions and culled out the principles of law governing the maintainability of appeals under Section 9 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that an appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
“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 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution,” the Court had observed.
Against this backdrop, the Division bench of the HC, came to the conclusion that the present intra-court appeal against the judgment and order of the Single Judge (dated March 17, 2023) declining to initiate contempt proceedings is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and hence, the same was dismissed.
Advocate Shashi Kant appeared for the appellants.
Case title - Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 234 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198