Full Judgment
Writ Appeal No.546/2012 30.7.2012 Shri M.U.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal is directed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 21.7.2011 passed in Contempt Petition No.793/2007, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Contempt Petition on the ground that no case for initiating the action for contempt on the grounds raised was made out and the application was dismissed with liberty to the applicants to ventilate their grievance in accordance with law before an appropriate forum.
We have asked the learned counsel for appellants under what provision this appeal has been filed, but no satisfactory reply was given by the appellant.
Section 2 of the aforesaid Act provides as under :- “2.
Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench Comprising of two judges of the same High Court.
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within 45 days from the date of order passed by a single Judge :- Provided that any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period of 45 days, if the petitioner satisfies the Division Bench that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.”
The aforesaid provision specifically provides that an appeal before the Division Bench lies against an order passed by the single Judge exercising original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
But, the learned single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act against which appeal has been provided in this Act.
We have also examined Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, which provides as under :- “19.
Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court : Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that- (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.”
The aforesaid provision provides as of right an appeal against an order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
But when the Contempt Petition was dismissed, no appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that this appeal is incompetent and accordingly, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge A.Praj.