JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant is the 2nd respondent in Contempt Case (C)No.2610 of 2022, which is one filed by the respondents herein, who were the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14653 of 2022, alleging that the respondent therein, the then Deputy director of Collegiate Education, Kollam has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 02.08.2022 in that writ petition, whereby that writ petition was allowed directing the said respondent to take up Exts.P4 to P7 proposals and issue appropriate orders thereon, after hearing the petitioners and adverting to Clause 6.1.1(g) of Ext.P2 order dated 29.06.2019, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.

2. In Contempt Case(C)No.2610 of 2022, Dr. Suvarnakumar, the then Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam, was arrayed as the respondent. During the pendency of the Contempt Case, he was transferred. On behalf of the respondent, an affidavit dated 28.10.2023 was placed on record, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(d) orders. The document marked as Annexure R1(d) is a copy of the order dated 04.07.2023 of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam, whereby a decision has been taken on Exts.P4 to P7 proposals, based on Annexure R1(b) Government order dated 04.04.2023. In the affidavit, it is stated that since the respondent has passed an order as directed in Annexure A1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.14653 of 2022, the Contempt Case may be closed.

3. On 30.10.2023, when Contempt Case(C)No.2610 of 2022 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following order;

“The respondent is directed to appear before this Court to read out charges.”

4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 30.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before this Court in this Contempt Appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. On 10.11.2023, when this appeal came up for consideration as unnumbered, Registry was directed to number the appeal in case the defects noted are cured and list before the Bench. In that order, it was made clear that, the question of maintainability of the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act will be decided on the judicial side.

6. On 22.11.2023, after hearing arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, including the question of maintainability, this Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings in Contempt Case(C)No.2610 of 2022 pending before the learned Single Judge, for a period of three weeks.

7. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The issue that requires consideration in this appeal is as to whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable against the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C)No.2610 of 2022 directing the respondent therein to appear before the Court to read out the charges. If such an appeal is maintainable, the further question that requires consideration is as to whether any interference is warranted on the impugned order dated 30.10.2023.

9. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondents addressed arguments on the legality of Annexure R1(d) order dated 04.07.2023 of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam and also Annexure R1(b) Government order dated 04.04.2023 on bunching of increment. We do not propose to consider those issues in this contempt appeal, since it is beyond the scope of this appeal. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and that raised by the learned Special Government Pleader on those issues are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum at appropriate stage.

10. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the responde