S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims the following three reliefs:-

"(a) declare that Sections 2(c), 12, 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are unconstitutional and void inasmuch as the provisions contained therein are against Part III of the Constitution, for, they are against the first principle of natural justice, which stands enshrined in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, diabolic, arbitrary and unjust;

(b) declare that the entire proceedings in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2016 and unnumbered Criminal Contempt Petition arising out of Order dated 22.02.2017 in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2016 pending before the Nagpur Bench of this Hon'ble Court are unconstitutional and void ab initio;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Hon'ble Court to consider the petitioner's representations dated 29.08.2016 and 18.02.2017 (Exhibits "E" and "F" hereto) seeking transfer of Criminal Contempt Petition arising out of Order dated 22.02.2017 in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2016 pending before the Nagpur Bench of this Hon'ble Court to any other Bench at the Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court at Mumbai;

(d) issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or injunction, restraining and prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding any further in furtherance of the orders dated 6.06.2016, 1.02.2017, 8.2.2017, 22.02.2017 and 23rd February, 2017 (Exhibits "A", "C", "D"-"G", "B" and "I" hereto)"

2. At the outset, the contesting respondents to this writ petition, namely, respondent nos. 2 and 3 raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition. Mr. Sandesh Patil appearing on behalf of the Union of India would submit that this writ petition essentially questions the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed against the petitioner by the Nagpur Bench of this court. Mr. Patil relies upon the order passed on 27/28th February, 2017, copy of which was tendered by him in court at a lengthy hearing held on 24th February, 2017. The Suo Moto Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2016 came to be decided on 27/28th February, 2017. Mr. Patil submits that an attempt is made to reopen the proceedings, which have been concluded by a Bench of this court at Nagpur. Such a writ petition, therefore, cannot be entertained by this court. Mr. Patil has, in that regard, invited our attention to the fact that the present petition was filed on 24th February, 2017. According to him, a perusal of the prayers at page 16 of the paper book, reproduced above, would indicate that the petition is founded on an understanding that the proceedings before the Nagpur Bench have not attained finality. However, the final judgment delivered on 27/28th February, 2017 would indicate that the proceedings have attained finality. In the judgment, the complete factual position is set out. Once the concluded proceedings have resulted in the delivery of a final judgment recording a conviction of the petitioner-contemnor and sentencing him as well, then, his remedy is to challenge that judgment and order in further appeal. In that regard, Mr. Patil would rely upon Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He would submit that in the light of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 19, an appeal against this court's judgment would lie to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In that, the petitioner can raise all contentions. However, the present proceedings to quash that judgment filed in the principal seat of this court would not be maintainable. Mr. Patil impressed upon us the position in law, namely, that a High Court may have a principal seat and Benches within a State. Nonetheless, it is a single High Court. The Benches of the Bombay High Court do not functions as distinct High Courts. Relying upon the language of Article 214 of the Constitution of