A.F.R.

Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 135 of 2022

Appellant :- Rajeev Pandey And Another

Respondent :- Prem Shankar

Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli

Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Kant Mishra

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

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.

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).

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

2 of 13

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