JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. An objection with regard to maintainability of appeal has been raised referring to provisions contained under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971") that the appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.

3. That an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 would not be maintainable against an order dismissing contempt petition is not only clear from the provisions itself but no longer res-integra in view of series of decisions of the Supreme Court. The provisions contained under Section 19 of the Act of 1971, with which we are concerned in the present case, read as below:-

Section 19 of the Act of 1971:-

"19. Appeals. (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in/the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt--

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate court may order that-

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed--

(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;

(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against."

4. As early as in 1974, the Supreme Court settled this issue in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa H.C. reported in AIR 1974 SC 2255 holding as under:-

"8. It is, therefore, clear that the order made by the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in the present case rejecting the motion made by the appellant and refusing to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the Chief Justice and other judges was not appealable under Section 19, Sub-section (1). We may point out that in the present case it is unnecessary to consider whether an appeal under Section 19, Sub-section (1) is confined only to a case where the High Court after initiating a proceeding for contempt finds the alleged contemner guilty and punishes him for contempt as contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General or it extends also to a case where after initiating a proceeding for contempt, the High Court finds that the alleged contemner is not guilty of contempt and exonerates him, or even if he is found guilty of contempt, declines to punish him. A question may well arise whether in the latter case the Advocate General or any other person who has, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, move the High Court can appeal as of right against the order or decision of the High Court. That question does not arise in the present case and we need not, therefore, express any opinion upon it, though we may point out that in England a right of appeal is given to a disappointed applicant under Section 13, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960.

9. We are, therefore, of the View that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is well founded and the appellant is not entitled to maintain the present appeal under Section 19, Sub-section (1). The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."

5. It was held that where contempt petition is dismissed,