S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) 1. Leave granted.

( 2 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a Special Appeal from an interim order passed by the court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction is maintainable. The said question arises in the following circumstances :-

( 3 ) APPELLANT-HEREIN is an Association of Parents of the Wards who have taken admission in different professional colleges including medical colleges. Respondent No. 1 is a Secretary of Era's Lucknow Medical college and Hospital while respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Medical education, Government of U. P.

( 4 ) A writ petition was filed by the appellant against the State of U. P. and others wherein a learned Single Judge of the High Court having regard to the decision of a 11 Judge Bench of this Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] while disposing of the writ petition on 31st August, 2006, directed as under:-

"learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Sri Sanjay Bhasin, informs that the authorities are bound to act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the various government Orders i. e. Government order dated 15. 7. 2003 and 13. 7. 2005 issued in the light of the judgment of this Court at Allahabad. In the light of the above no further directions are required to be issued by this Court. In the circumstances, the authorities must ensure and stick on the fair statement made on behalf of the respondents. With these observations the writ petition is finally disposed of. "

( 5 ) INDISPUTABLY clarification as regards interpretation of various directions/observations made in T. M. A. Pai Foundation (supra) fell for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Islamic academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ]. The mater did not stop there. Another Seven Judge Bench was constituted to interpret the directions issued in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) vis-`-vis T. M. A. Pai Foundation (supra ). In P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] wherein direction to constitute various Committees inter alia to determine the quantum of fees payable by the students for taking admission as also tuition and other fees to continue their studies in professional colleges, was reiterated.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was not a party to the said writ petition. It, however, approached the Committee for determination of the quantum of fees which could be collected from the students. The Committee refused to go into the said question opining that for the year in question i. e. 2003-04 it had no jurisdiction to decide the same.

( 7 ) RELYING on or on the basis of the said opinion of the Committee the first respondent approached the Government of the State. A Government order was issued on 7th September, 2006 permitting the College to collect rs. 2,96,000. 00 as fees for admission. The College indisputably collected the said amount from the students.

( 8 ) IT is at this stage that a contempt petition was filed by the appellant against the contemnors-respondents contending that by issuance of the said g. O. dated 7th September, 2006 the State had committed contempt of Court. 1st respondent was impleaded as a respondent-contemnor on the plea that he was also bound by the earlier decision of the Court. However, he was not a party to the writ petition.

( 9 ) A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 13th september, 2006 while opining that a prima facie case for initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act has been made out, passed the following interim order :-

" After considering the argument on behalf of the both sides this Court is of the view that issuing of the Government Order dated 7. 9. 2006 prima facie indicates the commission of contempt of court. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 1 and 2. They shall file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit maybe filed within a week