JUDGMENT :

(Harish Tandon , J.)

1. Because of the conflicting decisions operating in the field pertaining to the filing of the contempt application before the Single Bench after the order of the Single Bench is affirmed by the Division Bench, alleging the violation thereof, the following reference has been made for answer by the Special Bench :-

(a) Will the doctrine of merger be applied to confer an exclusive jurisdiction on a Division Bench to entertain contempt application where the order of the Single Bench is either upheld in toto and/or the appeal against an order of the Single Bench is dismissed simplicitor ?

(b) Is the jurisdiction of the Division Bench and a Single Bench in such cases co-extensive insofar as the contempt applications are concerned?

2. The referral was made on a contempt application filed before the Single Bench alleging the violation of an order dated 14th July, 2022 passed in WPA 863 of 2022. The said order was carried in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the said order on 18th January, 2023 in MA 16 of 2022. Alleging the violation of the order dated 14th July, 2022 passed by the Single Bench, a contempt application was filed before the Single Bench and a point was taken that in view of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2000)6 SCC 359 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Kollegal, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376. The doctrine of merger was made applicable and therefore, the order of the Single Bench merged with the order of the Division Bench and lost its existence in the eye of law. The Single Bench further noticed the earlier Single Bench decision in case of Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. P. S. Bhattacharya, reported in 2012 (3) CLJ (CAL) 185 and unreported order dated 23rd September, 2021 passed in CPAN 389 of 2021 (Imperium Energy Utility Services LLP vs. Prem Sagar Mishra & Ors.) and order dated 26th July, 2022 in CPAN 9 of 2020 (Baratang Forest Worker’s Union & Anr. vs. Tarun Coomer) taking a different view. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dineshan K.K. vs. R.K. Singh & Anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88 was further noticed by the referral Judge wherein the Supreme Court even upholding the applicability of doctrine of merger held that the proper forum to entertain the contempt applications would be the Judge in the High Court who passed the initial order.

3. Such being the foundation of the reference because of the conflicting decisions taken by the different judges, this Bench is constituted to answer those references.

4. The answer to the first reference does not require any elaborate discussion as the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various judgments which we would consider hereinafter. The doctrine of merger though universally recognized under the common law principles but does not find place either in the constitutional provision or in the statute. The said doctrine received judicial recognition on a salutary principle to uphold the hierarchy in the judicial system established under the Constitution so as to achieve singularity in adjudication with an object to avoid more than one decisions to operate in the field. It is intended to blend and/or infuse the judgment of the inferior Court into the judgment of the higher forum depending largely upon the scope, power and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the higher forum. It is a verdict of the last forum as envisaged in the hierarchy of the Court system being the last word on the subject cause to eradicate any sense of ambiguity and/or discrepancies in the findings recorded by the inferior Court. It is intended to give primacy to a last word spoken in the judgment of the highest Court or the superior Court exercising jurisdiction in this regard.

5. Even though the doctrine of merger found birth in a judicial system as a common law doctrine, yet after the adopt