By the Court—This special appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 28.10.2005 dismissing contempt petition No. 3194 of 2004 filed by the appellant.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the contempt petition of the appellant has wrongly been rejected by the Hon’ble Single Judge on the ground that the earlier Contempt petition having already been dismissed finding that no case for contempt is made out, since no specific direction has been issued by the writ Court, second contempt petition without any change in the circumstances, in respect to the same order of the Court, is liable to be rejected.

3. However, the Court prima facie found that the appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court itself is not maintainable. Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.P. Verma, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow and others v. U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association, Lucknow and others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 2333 and submitted that the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 would be maintainable.

4. We have considered the submissions but do not find any force. This Court in A.P. Verma (supra) held that in respect of orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the contempt petition, no appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court would be maintainable. However, if the contempt Court issues certain further directions to the parties, such directions would amount to orders issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge other than those covered under the Contempt of Courts Act and to that extent, special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court may be maintainable, since that would be regarding the merit of the claim made in the writ petition. The relevant observation contained in para 8 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under :

“Under the impugned order, learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that the directions issued in the writ petition had not been complied with but he did not want to punish the appellants at this stage. He has issued a further direction to the appellants to comply with the order passed in the writ petition in its letter and spirit. In view of what we have held above, this appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Act against the finding regarding non-compliance of the order which amounts to a ‘civil contempt’ within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. The appeal will also be maintainable under Chapter VIll, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the directions issued in the impugned order which are regarding the merit of the claim made by the respondents in the writ petition.” (para 8)

5. In the present case, the appellant filed contempt petition No. 414 of 2005 and the Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing parties, found that the writ Court has not issued any specific direction, which is alleged to have been disobeyed by the respondents and, therefore, no contempt is made out. Accordingly, contempt petition was rejected. Again, contempt petition No. 3194 of 2005 was filed alleging non-compliance of the same order of the writ Court without any additional facts and circumstances and the Hon’ble Single Judge has rejected contempt petition vide order under appeal. In such circumstances, the order impugned in the appeal does not show that the Hon’ble Single Judge has issued any direction regarding merit of the claim of the appellant in the writ petition and, therefore, the special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court would not be maintainable.

6. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short ‘Act of 1971’) is a self-contained code with respect to the procedure to be followed by the Court in the matter of Contempt. Section 19 of the Act provides of filing appeal against any order or decision of the High Cour