2016 Supreme(AP) 513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR, ANIS, JJ.
Kurapati Steevan – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour Employment & Others – Respondents
L.P.A. (SR) No. 12594 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2016

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226 and 227 - Letters Patent Appeal - Clause 15 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Judge holding that no willful disobedience was made out on the part of the respondents in relation to the order dated - Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this appeal is maintainable under Clause of the Letters Patent and that restrictions under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts - Court was considering a case where an appeal was filed against further directions given by a learned Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction and the Division Bench of the High Court had held that such an appeal was not maintainable. In this situation, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable as an appeal would lie to the Court normally exercising appellate jurisdiction against directions given by a Court without jurisdiction. Similarly, In the Matter of : State of West Bengal and CRL. L.J. a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a case where a learned Judge, exercising contempt jurisdiction, issued directions. In such circumstances, the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was held to be maintainable. These cases are therefore different from the present case - Parents Association of Students SCC is also distinguishable. That was a case where an interim order was passed by a learned Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction against a third party to the writ proceedings from which the contempt case arose - An appeal was preferred against the order by the third party - Maintainability of the appeal was in issue as no order of punishment had been passed warranting exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section of the Act of Reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on its earlier decision in SCC wherein it was held that exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with initiation of proceedings for contempt and if an order is passed not discharging the rule it would be an order in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and an appeal would be maintainable - In effect these were also cases relating to actual exercise of contempt jurisdiction unlike the case on hand where the learned Judge found it fit and proper not to exercise such jurisdiction - Held, Court observed that an appeal is a creature of the statute and unless provided it could not be claimed as a matter of right or course - It was held that if the High Court passed an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or refusing to initiate proceedings for contempt, no appeal would be maintainable against such an order - Reference was made to the fact that contempt proceedings were not in the nature of a dispute between two parties but were proceedings primarily between the Court and the person alleged to have committed contempt - It was further observed that a person who informs the Court of the alleged contempt is not in the position of a prosecutor but is only assisting the Court in maintaining and upholding its dignity and majesty - Court therefore held that it is for the Court to ultimately decide whether proceedings should be initiated for contempt or to discharge the contemnor on the facts and circumstances of the case. It was however pointed out that a person aggrieved by dropping of the contempt proceedings or failure to initiate the same is not without remedy as he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Though this case arose in the context of an appeal under Section of the Act of the observation that the remedy provided to an aggrieved petitioner in a contempt case is only under Article 136 of the Constitution unequivocally puts it beyond the pale of doubt that no appeal would lie from such an order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This view was reiterated thereafter by the Supreme Court - appellant cannot invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge refusing to exercise contempt jurisdiction - Appeal is dismissed.