Shaffique, J.

The review petition has been referred to the Full Bench, as per order dated 12/2/2018 by a Division Bench, which in turn is based on a reference order dated 30/1/2018 by one among us.

2. The issue referred is regarding the correctness of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Antony v. P.S. Rana {2005 (2) K.L.T 120}.

3. In Antony's case (supra), this Court held that a review petition is not maintainable against an order in a Contempt case.

4. The learned single Judge by the reference order dated 30/1/2018 observed that the said judgment is in conflict with the judgment of the Apex Court in M. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala [(2000) 1 SCC 666]. Reference was also made to the judgments of the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. On the matter being placed before the Division Bench, while concurring with the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge, the matter has been placed before us.

5. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. To state the facts in brief, petitioner filed the Contempt Case No. 832 of 2017, alleging non-compliance of an interim order dated 10/4/2017 in W.P.(C).No.10631/2017. While considering the case, the learned single Judge, by placing reliance on an affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent closed the Contempt case. The review petition was then filed by the petitioner alleging that the 2nd Respondent had filed a false affidavit and therefore the order dated 12/7/2017 in the Contempt Case should be recalled and the matter should be heard and decided a fresh.

7. The question that had arisen was whether the review petition filed against the judgment in the Contempt Case was maintainable or not. A view had been expressed by the Registry of the High Court, that several review petitions against Contempt cases were not numbered, based on the judgment in Antony's case (supra).

8. In Antony's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the power of review cannot be exercised by the High Court in contempt jurisdiction, as no such power is conferred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the ‘CC Act’). It was held that though Article 215 of the Constitution of India confers plenary powers on the High Court, to exercise contempt jurisdiction, the procedure is regulated by the CC Act. It was also held that the CC Act is in addition to the plenary powers under Article 215 and not in derogation of any other law relating to Contempt of Courts. It was further observed that if the contempt jurisdiction is invoked in exercise of plenary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and an order was passed, by using the same plenary powers, such an order cannot be withdrawn or reviewed. It is held that the contemnor, once discharged cannot again be tried, by exercising power of review as no such power exists.

9. In M.M. Thomas (supra), the Apex Court was considering a question as to whether the review petition filed in an appeal under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the ‘PF Act’) was maintainable. No doubt under the PF Act, a provision was incorporated to review the judgments passed by the Forest Tribunal and appellate orders passed by the High Court. But the review powers could be exercised only on specific grounds. In that particular case, the State filed a review petition before the High Court to review an appellate judgment, alleging that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. High Court reviewed the judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the State. The respondent took up the matter to the Supreme Court. One of the contentions urged was that conditions specified in the PF Act for exercising the power of review was not established. The question considered was whether the High Court has a power of review de hors Section 8C of the PF Act. The question posed by the Apex Court was