Appeal under Section 19(1) Contempt of Courts Act Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders in Contempt Proceedings: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem held that a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings, stating that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only where the Court has actually imposed punishment for contempt. In a matter concerning alleged non-compliance with directions on regularisation of a casual worker in the Rural Development Department, the Bench observed that the order dated 01.12.2023 merely required the government appellants to file a fresh compliance report without deciding parties’ rights or imposing punishment, and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The appellants challenged an order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a contempt petition directing them to comply with an earlier writ judgment and file a fresh compliance report. The dispute concerns the regularisation of the respondent, who was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer on 06.06.1995 and disengaged on 30.04.2003 on the ground that his engagement occurred after the cut-off date prescribed under SRO 64 of 1994.
The respondent challenged his disengagement in SWP No. 893/2003, which resulted in the setting aside of the termination order and a direction to the authorities to consider his regularisation within three months. The appellants' intra-court appeal against that judgment was dismissed, after which the Government passed an order regularising the respondent prospectively and granting age relaxation. The respondent questioned this, seeking regularisation from the date of completion of seven years of continuous service. During this time, he also initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance of the original writ judgment. The appellants asserted that they had already passed a consideration order rejecting his claim. They then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal contending that the contempt court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing further directions.
The Court observed that Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act confers a right of appeal only when punishment for contempt has been imposed. It recorded that “the right to appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act arises only against an order or decision of the High Court imposing punishment for contempt.” The Bench stated that the impugned order did not impose any punishment and merely directed filing of a fresh compliance report. It noted that “the impugned order does not impose any punishment; it merely directs filing of a fresh compliance report.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and recorded the principle that an appeal under Section 19 is maintainable “only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.” It further quoted that “any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties will not be in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and therefore not appealable under Section 19.”
The Bench also referred to a prior Division Bench judgement in State of J&K v. Mohammad Tayoub Leharwal, noting the principle that an order qualifies as a “judgment” under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent only if it finally determines a right or issue between the parties. It recorded that “the intermediary and interlocutory orders passed during the course of the proceedings which do not determine any right or issue between the parties cannot be said to be the judgment amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Division Bench under Clause 12.”
The Court stated that the impugned order was routine in nature and intended only to facilitate the progress of the contempt proceedings. It recorded that “it neither imposes any punishment for contempt nor finally determines any right of the parties.”
The Bench concluded its observations by recording that the appellants retained the opportunity to justify their consideration order before the contempt court and that the appeal was not maintainable as it challenged an interlocutory order that did not fall within the scope of Section 19 or Clause 12.
The Court stated that “in the present case, the impugned order dated 01.12.2023, is only a routine order passed to facilitate the progress of the case, it neither imposes any punishment for contempt nor finally determines any right of the parties.” It further recorded that “it is only an interlocutory order requiring the appellants to file a fresh compliance report.” The Court observed that “the learned Single Bench has also not made any addition or alteration to the original directions sought to be implemented through the contempt petition in which the order impugned has been passed.” It also recorded that “the appellants still have sufficient opportunity to justify their consideration order before the contempt Court.”
The Bench then directed that “the present appeal against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings is not maintainable.” Finally, the Court ordered that “accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent: Mr. P. N. Bhat, Advocate
Case Title: Commissioner Secretary to Government & Anr. v. Ryaz Ahmed
Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: LPA No. 36/2024
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem
