IMPORTANT POINT
The right of appeal will be available under section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

JUDGMENT

Dutta, j. -This appeal under section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, herein after referred to as the Act, is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application for contempt filed by the appellant against Shri Bhajan Lal, who was then the Chief Minister of the State.

2. In the application for contempt. It was, inter alia, alleged by the appellant that one Shri Devinder Sharma was a Forest Minister in the Council of Ministers headed by Shri Bhajan Lat. The said Devinder Sharma was defeated in the legislative assembly election held in 1982. Shri Bhajan Lal, because of his political and personal relations with Shri Devinder Sharma, was personally very keen on giving him an office of profit. In order to achieve this objective, Bhajan Lal got an Ordinance being Ordinance No. 44 of 1982 promulgated by the Governor. The Ordinance, inter alia, provided the constitution of a Forest Development Board, According to the appellant, such Board was constituted with a view to appointed the said Devinder Sharma is its Chairman.

3. It was further alleged by the appellant that the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance was challenged by twelve Indian Forest Officers including the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court. It was alleged that the respondent, Bhajan Lal, though Shri R.K. Vashisth, the Superintendent of Police, pressurised and threatened the writ petitioners to withdraw the said writ petition and, pursuant to that, eleven officers withdrew from the petition. It was only the appellant who continued to prosecute the writ petition and. as a consequence of which, the appellant was transferred from the Forest Expert Special Project Cell to the Forest Department, Haryana, on March 18, 1983. The further allegation of the appellant was that after having failed to threaten and demoralise the appellant through indirect means the respondent, Bhajan Lal, called him to his official residence on July 26, 1983 through the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests and criminally intimidated him to withdraw the writ petition.

4. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for contempt against the respondent, Bhajan Lal, in the High Court complaining of interference by the respondent with the due course of judicial proceeding. The application was admitted and a rule nisi was issued upon the respondent. The respondent appeared in the rule and opposed the same by filing an affidavit denying all the allegations made against him by the appellant.

5. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after considering the application, affidavits and the submissions made on behalf of the parties took the view that there were circumstances to indicate that it was not a fit case in which to court should exercise its jurisdiction under the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed the application and discharged the rule nisi.

6. It is apparent from the facts stated above that the allegations made by the appellant, if proved, would constitute a criminal contempt. It is also not disputed by the parties that it was a case of criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c) of the Act. The scope and ambit of this judgment will, therefore, be confined of criminal contempt,

7. Mr. Sibbal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under section 19(1) of the Act. It is contended by him that as no punishment was imposed .on the respondent by the High

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, section 19(1) is inapplicable and the appeal is in competent. Section 19(1) provides as follows:-

"19(1). An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of a 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