IMPORTANT POINT
No appeal lies from an order of the High Court which refuses to punish for contempt on the ground that no case of contempt has been made out.

JUDGMENT

B.C. Jauhari, J. This appeal has been filed by Kuldip Narain Lal, appellant, against the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Goel in Contempt Case No. 304 of 1981. Kuldip Narain Lal v. Sri Mahendra Pal Jain and Sri Shankar Lal Jaiswal by which he has discharged the notice for contempt issued against the opposite parties and held them not to be guilty of the contempt of Court.

2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as officiating Collection Amin by the order dated 22.8.198.0. But subsequently by another order dated 21.6.1981 he was made seasonal Collection Amin. The appellant challenged this order by way of petition before the Service Tribunal Lucknow and applied for an ad interim stay order that the order dated 21.6.1981 should not be given effect to. On 19.9 1981 the Tribunal passed an order that 12.10.1981 be fixed for bearing of the stay matter and till then status quo as prevailing on that day be maintained. This stay order was subsequently confirmed on 21.10.1981. The grievance of the appellant is that the opposite parties have ignored this order of the Tribunal and have not given him pay and have committed contempt of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, be punished for contempt.

3 The opposite parties filed their objection saying that no order of the tribunal was disobeyed and no contempt was committed.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge held that although the Tribunal was a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, the order could not be challenged on the ground of its being passed without jurisdiction and repelled 'the preliminary objections raised in that regard. On facts, however, he held that it cannot be said that the opposite parties disobeyed any order of the Tribunal and, in fact, the order of the Tribunal suffers from vagueness.

5. In the result, he has dismissed the petition for taking action for committing the alleged contempt. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal purporting to be under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and we feel that in the first instance no appeal lies against an order where the High Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. This is clear from the wording of Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act. Section 19 lays down as below:

"19(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-(a) where the order or decision is that of a Single Judge: a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court, (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench of the Supreme Court; Provided that where the order or decision is that 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, and (c) The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt."

In its very plain language sub-section (1) has provided for an appeal against a decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Consequently, an appeal would lie where the jurisdiction to punish for contempt has been exercised and the contemnor has been punished. In the instant Case the High Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction to punish for contempt on the ground that no case of contempt has been made out. Consequently, this order of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be an order of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and is, therefore, not appealable.

7. In the view that we have taken regarding there being no appeal against such order, we find support from the case of Baradakanta Misra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J, of the O