Ramesh Chandra Dohre and Another vs Viresh Kumar and Others

The Appellant had filed an application to initiate contempt proceeding for non-compliance of the interim order dated 22.11.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 34719 of 2001. This contempt application was dismissed on 13.9.2006. Hence the present appeal.

The operative portion of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows:

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have committed any wilful or deliberate disobedience and further it would not be appropriate for this Court to proceed in the contempt matter as the writ petition is still pending and is contested by the opposite party. Thus, in view of the facts aforesaid and keeping in view the ratio of the decision in the case of Jammu & Kashmir v. Mohd. Yaqoob, the notices are discharged and the contempt petition is consigned to records at this stage without prejudice to the rights of the applicant in the pending writ petition.

The single judge has discharged the contempt notices on the finding that there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order and consigned it to the record room. It is consistent view of our Court that no appeal lies against such an order before division bench. It can only be challenged before the Supreme Court. (See Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs. R.K. Singh and Another, ; Maheshwari Prasad Mishra v. Smt. Achla Khanna 2006 (6) ADJ 373; Hemendra Swaroop Bhatnagar (Now Deceased) substituted by Sri Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar Vs. Sri P.S. Gosain, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sri V.K. Mittal, Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri R.S. Tolia, Chief Secretary, State of Uttaranchal and Sri R.K. Sudhanshu, District Magistrate/Collector, ; and Sharwan Kumar Vs. Atul Kumar Gupta and Others, .

The counsel for the Appellant submits that the present appeal is maintainable. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Midnapore People''s Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, reported in 2007-JCR-1-209/2006-CLT�102-452 (the Midnapore-Bank case).

In the Midnapore-Bank Case, the law is summarised in the 11th paragraph of that judgment. It explains that an appeal would be maintainable before the division bench:

� u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act if any punishment is awarded; or

� If the single judge decides any issue or makes any direction relating to merits of the case.

In this case, he single judge has neither punished anyone for contempt nor decided any issue or made any direction relating to merit of the case. This appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.