The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of the Writ Court.

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava, JJ.

This Intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5344 of 2021 (Prem Shanker vs. Rajeev Pandey, Special Land Acquisition Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly and another) whereby and whereunder exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the learned Single Judge, holding that prima facie a case for contempt is made out, has directed the appellants herein to appear in person before him to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them for alleged violation of the order dated 30.7.2019 passed in Writ-C No. 17534 of 2019.

2. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is legally not sustainable as it exceeds the jurisdiction conferred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Writ Court vide its order dated 30.7.2019 had disposed of the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances which he had taken in the writ petition before the appellant No.1, Special Land Acquisition Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly, who in turn was directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of filing the representation before him. The appellant No.1 in compliance of the direction of the Writ Court passed a detailed / reasoned order dated 26.10.2020 deciding the claim of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, instead of assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 26.10.2020 in appropriate proceedings, chose to invoke the contempt jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge travelling beyond the order of the Writ Court of which the breach was complained has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has traversed beyond the order of the Writ Court and the impugned order is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. The contempt jurisdiction ought not to have been exercised as there is no deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the contempt petition itself be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court dated 17.2.2014 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 77 of 2014; Decision dated 27.10.2015 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 707 of 2015; Decision dated 12.2.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 1225 of 2019; and decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 399 (Midnapore Peoples’ Coop Bank Ltd. And others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others).

3. A preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal has been raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant/respondent. He submits that the order of the learned Single Judge merely requires the personal presence of the appellants to answer the show cause as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them. Such an order being purely interlocutory and not affecting the rights of the appellants in terms of framing a charge or punishing them for contempt, an appeal under Chapter 8 Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court may not lay. The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Reliance has been placed on the decision dated 13.7.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 20.5.1994 passed in Shri A.S. Chatha vs. Malook Singh and others as also of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh : Amaravati dated 15.9.2021 passed in Pola Bhaskar vs. Shaik Shain Bi and others.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The moot question for decision in this Appeal is regarding the maintainability of the Intra