By the Court.—Heard Sri Zafar Nayyer, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appeared in support of this appeal and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tiwari who appears for the respondents.

2. This contempt appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2009 exercising the powers under the Contempt of Courts Act by which liberty has been given to the respondents to comply with the orders passed by this Court on 29.7.1998 in writ petition No. 17585 of 1996 within ten days and to file a fresh compliance report before the Court on the date fixed. It is further provided that in case the order is complied with nobody need to appear failing which the appellants are to appear in person before the Court on the date fixed i.e. 30.7.2009.

3. The order assailed in this appeal, for convenience, is quoted here :

“Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari for the petitioner/applicant and Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Zafar Nayyer, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Chief Standing Counsel along with M.C. Tripathi Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

After hearing at length, I am of the considered opinion that there can be no justification to detract the view taken earlier by this Court mentioned in the order dated 6.5.2009. I am in full agreement of the aforesaid view, accordingly the same is hereby reiterated.

Respondents are permitted to comply with the order passed by this Court on 29.7.1998 in writ petition No. 17585 of 1996 within ten days from today and file a fresh compliance report before the Court on the date fixed. In case the order is complied with by that time, the Principal Secretary (Finance) and the Principal Secretary (Law) will not appear in person before this Court on the date fixed. However, in case of non-compliance of the order they are directed to appear in person before this Court on the date fixed.

List/Put up on 30th July, 2009.

A copy of this order shall be provided to Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Zafar Nayyer Additional Advocate General free of cost within 24 hours.

Sd/- Hon. Sabhajeet Yadav, J."

4. Initially when the appeal was placed. Sri Singh raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal. This Court directed the learned Stamp Reporter to examine and report, upon which the report came in which it is mentioned that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. Thus this Court is to hear the contention of either of the sides on the question of maintainability of the appeal.

6. Sri Nayyer, learned Additional Advocate General, to object the report of the learned Stamp Reporter about maintainability of the appeal and also to the submission of Sri Singh submits that the order of learned Single Judge challenged in this appeal is not an order only for framing of charge simplicitor rather it is an order by which a mandate to do something has been given and thus even the order is at an interlocutory/intermediary stage but as it directs to do something in a particular way the appeal as filed is maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. It is further submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge on the facts is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the appellant cannot be left to be remediless and as the only remedy as on date available to the appellant is to file the appeal, this appeal is maintainable. Lastly it is submitted that all the directions given by this Court in the writ petition has been complied with and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the order by reiterating the order passed in the writ petition dated 6.5.2009 and in giving the impugned direction.

8. In support of the submissions a