ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-4, appearing for the State and Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent.

2. This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No.2165 of 2015, by which the learned Single Judge has directed the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah to file a fresh affidavit showing full and final compliance of the order passed by the Court, failing which the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah shall be required to be personally present in the Court to explain as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him.

3. An objection has been raised by Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, regarding the maintainability of the present intracourt appeal.

4. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention towards the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No.2165 of 2015, whereby the explanation to the show cause filed by the Collector, West Champaran was rejected. He contended that the tenor of the aforesaid order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge would itself make it evident that a mandamus has been issued while exercising contempt jurisdiction. Hence, an appeal would be maintainable before the Division Bench.

5. The operative part of the aforesaid order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced herein below:—

“.....Considering all the facts and circumstances discussed in detail hereinabove, the plea advanced on behalf of the State and the defence taken by learned AAG 4 to nullify the effect of mandamus issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be accepted. The show cause filed on behalf of the respondent authorities taking the aforesaid plea is, therefore, rejected. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, is given two weeks time to file his further show cause stating as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him for willfully disobeying the order of this Court.

List the case on 25.10.2018.” (emphasis mine)

6. Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent submitted that in M.J.C. No.2165 of 2015 several adjournments were taken for filing show cause and finally an explanation to the show cause notice was filed after two years when Section 45 B of the Bihar Tenancy Act was deleted, which clearly indicates that opposite party no.2 has willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Court. He contended that in the contempt petition no fresh mandamus has been issued rather the learned Single Judge has given ample opportunity to the respondent Collector to comply with the original order, which was passed long back in the year 1986. He contended that in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') against a show cause notice an intra court appeal would not be maintainable.

7. We have heard the parties and perused the record.

8. Section 19 of the Act provides for appeal. The relevant portion of Section 19 of the Act is reproduced herein below:—

“19. Appeals.—(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, 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:”

9. The scope of Section 19 (1) of the Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal since reported in (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 26 wherein a three Judge Bench has categorically held that appeals under Section 19 of the Act would lie only against the orders punishing the contemnor for contempt and not any other order pas