B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AT issue, is an important question whether the order passed or direction issued in contempt case by a learned single Judge while discharging the contemner, is appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent ?

( 2 ) NORMALLY, the relevant facts of the case are stated and the legal principles are applied. But, in the instant cases, we may have to state the legal principles first and then dispose of the Letters Patent Appeals in the light of the said legal principles enunciated.

( 3 ) UNDER the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is in addition to the plenary powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is entitled to take up contempt proceedings either suo motu or on initiation of party and decide as to whether there are grounds to exercise the powers to punish the contemner. If the contemner is punished, then there is aright of appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If a single Judge exercises the said power of contempt, then the order is appealable to the Division Bench and if the Division Bench exercises the original jurisdiction to punish the contemner for contempt, then the appeal lies to the Supreme Court. In the instant cases, contempt cases were heard by the learned single Judges. In all the cases, the contemner were discharged, but the learned single Judges had issued some directions.

( 4 ) IF the contemner is discharged, no appeal lies under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said legal provision itself is clear in" that regard and further there is an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in D. J. Tone/a v. Bhajan Lal, 1988 (3) SCC 26. The dicta laid down in the said case by the Supreme Court was followed by this Court in several other cases, the first being in T. Vasantha Lakshmi v. Principal, APSWR School, 1992 (2) APLJ 77, which was further followed by later Division Benches in S. Sammaiah v. A. P. S. E. B. , 1994 (2) ALT 729, and Mohd. Mahmood v. A. Ramalatefiman, 1995 j[l) ALD94. Thus the settled proposition of law is that no appeal lies under the Contempt of Courts Act against the discharge of the contemner. It was also held by another Division Bench in Ch. Vasudeva Sarma v. E. O. , T. T. D. , 1997 (4) ALD 127 = 1997 (3) ALT 669, that not only that appeal against discharge of the contemner is not maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but no such appeal is also maintainable even under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The argument that there is a distinction between Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt and that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent can be invoked for filing appeal in case of discharge in civil contempt was also repelled by the Division Bench and it was held that Contempt of Courts Act does not make any distinction between Civil and Criminal Contempt in preferring appeals and that unless contemner is punished, be it Civil or Criminal, Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is inapplicable and so also Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Thus, there is a clear pronouncement that against the discharge of the contemner neither Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act nor Clause 15 of the Letters Patept provide an appeal.

( 5 ) THEN a further question arises as to whether the parties affected are remediless when an order is passed or directions issued by the learned single Judge while discharging the contemner in civil contempt. There is a Division Bench judgment in K. Jayalakshmi v. S. R. Sonwalkar, 1998 (1) ALD 207, in this regard. But, there is neither discussion nor reasoning to support the view. What all said was "we are sufficiently pursuaded to hold that modification of the directions in the writ petition by the impugned order in itself is a judgment for the purpose of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court and is appealable accordingly as an appeal in a civil proceeding. We accordingly entertain the appeal and consider whether, in exercise of the powe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document