An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable when the court has formed a prima facie opinion and proceeds to frame charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil K. Narendran, J.)

This contempt appeal is filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2024 of the learned Single Judge in Con.Case (C)No.2773 of 2023, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. By that order, the learned Single Judge posted the contempt case on 19.08.2024 for framing charges against the appellant, after recording a prima facie finding that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the interim order dated 25.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.13577 of 2023, whereby the appellant was directed to provisionally renew the D&O licence of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to operate the crusher unit.

2. By the order of reference dated 13.08.2024, the contempt appeal was referred to a Full Bench for examining the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in Dr.Sunil C. v. Dr.Selsa S. [2024 (4) KHC 89] on the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. The Full Bench answered the reference by the order dated 20.12.2024 – Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granites and another [2025 KLT OnLine 1014] holding that the interpretation given by the Division Bench in Dr.Sunil C. [2024 (4) KHC 89] is not a correct reading of clause (iv) of the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399]. In the said decision the Full Bench held that, the Division Bench while referring the matter to the Full Bench has correctly interpreted the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399]. The Full Bench answered the reference as under;

“An appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the order when the court, after forming a prima facie opinion, proceeds to frame a charge under Rule 14(b) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable.”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Konni Grama Panchayat for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Suni B.T. [2025 KLT OnLine 1014] the order dated 02.08.2024 of the learned Single Judge in Cont.Case (C)No.2773 of 2023, which is under challenge in this contempt appeal, is not an order appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

In such circumstances, this contempt appeal fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.