Compliance with court orders must be in accordance with the specified rules and amendments, and failure to do so may amount to contempt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.P. Mishra and Mr. K.M. Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondents no.1 and 2.

2. This special appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 2.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge while exercising his contempt jurisdiction in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1785 of 2019, whereby after recording a finding that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have taken a decision on the proposal in accordance with certain Rules, the application moved by the appellant seeking dismissal of the contempt application has been rejected. Learned Contempt Judge has, however, being lenient and benevolent, has made it open to the appellant to revisit the decision in accordance with certain Rules and file an affidavit of compliance, failing which, it has further been ordered that the charges shall be framed. The officer, namely the appellant, has been ordered to appear again on the next date.

3. We have been informed that by the order under appeal dated 2.11.2022 the contempt matter was listed on 21.11.2022. On 21.11.2022 a request was made on behalf of the appellant by none other than the learned Additional Advocate General to grant some time to comply with the order passed by the writ court. Accordingly, the contempt matter was fixed on 28.11.2022. We have also been informed that on 28.11.2022 the learned Contempt Judge was apprised of the present special appeal and accordingly the contempt matter has now been fixed for 30.11.2022.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the writ court by means of order dated 8.7.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.17187 (SS) of 2019, the contempt of which has been alleged in the contempt proceedings, had directed the appellant to take a final decision in terms of 1978 Rules within a period of two weeks and that by the time decision pursuant to the said order could be taken by the appellant amendment in the Rules was promulgated on 4.12.2019. Submission is that in compliance of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Writ Court, decision by the appellant was taken firstly on 17.10.2019 and thereafter again on 9.1.2020 and on the date second decision on 9.1.2020 was taken, amendment in the Rules was already in vogue having been promulgated on 4.12.2019. It is thus submitted that learned Single Judge while dealing with the contempt matter has recorded a wrong finding regarding disobedience of the order passed by the writ court by observing that the decision ought to have been taken in terms of the unamended Rules. It has further been argued that the learned Contempt Judge has given a direction in the order under appeal, dated 2.11.2022 that the appellant shall revisit earlier decision in accordance with the unamended Rules and file an affidavit of compliance and such a direction could not have been given by the learned Contempt Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is this direction which has led the appellant to institute the proceedings of this special appeal which is maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others; (2006) 5 SCC 399.

5. Learned counsel representing the respondents has, however, opposed the special appeal by submitting that the special appeal is not maintainable.

6. The legal position about the maintainability of the intra-court appeal in respect of the orders passed by Contempt Judge while exercising the contempt jurisdiction is not in dispute. Any special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules of the Court will be maintainable against an order passed by learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction only if he issues any direction or decides any issue touching the merits of the dispute between the parties, however, no such appeal will be available in case any order in interregnum is passed in the course of contempt proceedings. The question, thus, which arises in this c