JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This contempt appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act of 1971”) by one Mr. Pola Bhaskar, Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is respondent No. 2 in C.C. No. 1300 of 2020, against an order dated 26.07.2021. The said order reads as follows:

“Issue notice in Form-I to the respondents 1 to 3.

Post on 27.08.2021.”

3. It is contended by Mr. Krishnaiah that before issuing notice in Form-I, there was no consideration with regard to the responses filed by the appellant, wherein it is categorically stated that there is no violation of the order of the Court, which is alleged to have been violated. It is submitted that the learned single Judge committed grave error in issuing notice in Form-I and directing the appellant to appear before the Court, as no reasons were given for directing appearance under Rule 18 of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980. It is also submitted that petitioners had produced fake and fabricated material and, therefore, contempt case should have been dismissed after considering the averments made in the counter-affidavit.

4. Mr. Krishnaiah further submits that issuance of notice in Form-I indicates framing of charge and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 and in support thereof, he places reliance on a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Anil Kumar Dubey vs. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, wherein by a majority decision, it was held that appeal lies against an order framing charge in contempt proceedings.

5. Mr. Krishnaiah has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma, to impress upon the Court that the learned single Judge was in error in directing personal appearance, which is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Section 19 of the Act of 1971, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads as follows:

“19. Appeals - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the 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 is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that:

(a) The execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended.

(b) If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail.

(c) The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed:

(a) In the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days.

(b) In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.”

7. In D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 held as under:

“8. The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of Section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to p