Jammu and Kashmir High Court Dismisses Appeal on Contempt Proceedings

Appeal Challenging Routine Orders in Contempt Case Declared Non-Maintainable

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development & PR, against an order in a contempt petition concerning the regularization of a casual labourer, Ryaz Ahmed. The Division Bench, comprising Judges Mrs. Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem, reaffirmed the legal principle that appeals under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act are permissible only against orders imposing punishment for contempt.

The case originated from Ryaz Ahmed's disengagement as a casual labourer in 2003, a decision he contested, leading to a series of legal proceedings. Despite the 2010 order to reconsider his regularization under SRO 64 of 1994, the administrative authorities delayed compliance, prompting Ahmed to file a contempt petition. The Single Judge, hearing the contempt petition, directed the appellants to submit a fresh compliance report, an order now contested by the appellants through a Letters Patent Appeal.

The appellants argued that the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by issuing fresh directions, claiming compliance with the original writ court's directives. However, the Division Bench clarified that routine orders or directions issued during contempt proceedings, which do not impose penalties or resolve the core issues, are not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act or Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chuni Lal Nanda" (2006), the High Court emphasized that the right to appeal is confined to orders that punish for contempt. The routine nature of the impugned order-merely directing a compliance report-does not constitute a judgment or punishment warranting an appeal. 

The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the appeal mechanism is not misused for delaying compliance with court orders. By dismissing the appeal, the High Court reinforced the principle that interlocutory orders in contempt proceedings, which do not finally determine rights or impose penalties, remain non-appealable.

Bottom Line:

Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only when an order imposes punishment for contempt. Interlocutory orders or routine directions issued during contempt proceedings, which do not impose penalties or decide rights, are not appealable under this section or Clause 12 of Letters Patent.

Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 19(1), Letters Patent Clause 12

Commissioner Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development & PR v. Ryaz Ahmed, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818239