ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 352 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 branding the same as suffers from manifest arbitrariness, illegal and beyond the rule making authority of the High Court under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Articles 225 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the aforesaid rule on the following factual backdrop: -

3. In exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has framed the rules namely, the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Part (F) of Chapter XVIII of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’) provides for the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007. The said rules have been framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’). These rules prescribe the procedure of adjudicating the contempt case initiated by the High Court as well as by the subordinate court. Section 23 of the Act of 1971 only prescribes that the High Court and the Supreme Court can make rules and the rules so made must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1971. Rule 350(1) of the Rules of 2007 provides that reference under Section 15(2) (criminal contempt) of the Act of 1971 may be made by subordinate courts either suo motu or on an application received by it. Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 provides that before making a reference, the subordinate court shall conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause accompanied by copies of relevant documents, if any, to the contemner and after receiving the reply, if any, of the show cause notice, the subordinate court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed. Section 10 of the Act of 1971 empowers the High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts exercising the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself and since there is no provision for filing contempt petition for non-compliance of the order(s) passed by civil court, Rule 352 of the Rules of 2007 deserves to be struck down as unconstitutional.

4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the High Court/respondent No.1 stating inter alia that the present writ petition is not maintainable on account of locus standi of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not facing any contempt proceeding under the Act of 1971 and it is well settled law that the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when there is real dispute exists between the parties, whereas in the present writ petition, no case or controversy exists between the petitioner and the respondents with reference to the provisions of the Rules of 2007. It has been further stated that the Rules of 2007 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 read with Articles 225 & 227 of the Constitution of India. It has also been stated that in the entire writ petition there is no pleading as to which of the provisions of the Act of 1971, Rule 352 of the Rules of 2007 is inconsistent with and as such, the petitioner has failed to discharge the initial burden that Rule 352 is inconsistent/opposite/differing to the provisions of the Act of 1971 and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, the petitioner appearing in person, submits that against non-compliance of the order of civil court, contempt proceeding cannot directly be filed before this