1. Appeal under Section 19(1), Contempt of Courts Act — Maintainability — Challenge to orders in contempt petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
I. K. Saini – Appellant
Versus
K. N. Jha – Respondent
CONT.APP.(C) 23/2026 | CM APPL. 67137/2026 | CM APPL. 67138/2026 | CM APPL. 67139/2026 | CM APPL. 67140/2026 | CM APPL. 67141/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I. K. Saini
For the Respondents: Avni Singh, Harshita Raj
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I. K. Saini
For the Respondents: Avni Singh, Harshita Raj
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against orders that impose punishment for contempt, and not against orders that decline to initiate, drop, or exonerate the party from contempt proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Maintainability of Appeal - An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, specifically an order imposing punishment. (Para 14, 17)
(B) Contempt Proceedings - Scope of Appeal - Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings, nor an order dropping proceedings, nor an order exonerating the contemnor is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable against orders that do not impose punishment for contempt.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleged forgery in ration card issuance and non-compliance with court directions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Appeal only maintainable against order punishing for contempt; no contempt found or punishment imposed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Section 19 appeal lies only against order imposing punishment for contempt, not declining or dropping proceedings. (Para 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty to file civil suit for forgery grievance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Is an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act maintainable against an order declining to punish for contempt?
No. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt, not against orders declining to initiate, dropping, or acquitting in contempt proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Can the merits of the original dispute be adjudicated in a contempt appeal?
No. In a contempt proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate the merits of the dispute between the parties. Any direction on the merits is not appealable under Section 19. (Para 14 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter alia, assailing the impugned orders dated 19th May, 2022, 26th July, 2023, 1st April, 2024, and 7th February, 2025 in CONT.CAS(C) 37/2019.
3. The prayer of the Appellant in the present petition is that a ration card was issued by the Food and Supplies Department in favour of one Mrs.Premshila and her son – Mr. Achal Kumar, by indulging in certain forgery.
4. According to the Appellant, the said beneficiaries are having certain disputes with the Appellant, where they are stated to be relying on the said ration card and claiming rights therefrom.
5. The Appellant had approached the Public Grievances Commission, which had passed an order on 20th February, 2009, where the case was closed with the following observations:
“This case was transferred as a grievance case after hearing of appeal before Chairman, PGC. The complainant had sought an enquiry regarding issue of ration card to Mrs. Prem Shella Saini on the address H.No. A-70, NDSE-II, New Delhi on 29.6.01 by FSO Circle 9. It was alleged that Mrs. Saini had got issued ration card fraudulently on the above address by showing herself as wife of Shri. R.K. Saini, son of Somnath Saini, owner of House No. A-70, NDSE-II, New Delhi. She had produced NOC from Somnath Saini, the owner in the year of whereas Shri Saini had expired in 1984. The complainant further alleged that Mrs. Prem Shila Saini had obtained succession certificate from Court of law to debt and securities Of late Shri Rajender Kumar Saini by misrepresenting and showing herself as wife of R.K. Saini in the food card issued by FSO circle No.9.
Proceedings of the hearing:
According to report of AC/Vigilance Mrs. Prem Sheila Saini had applied for ration card vide diary No. 921 dated 29.6.01 and she had also submitted a copy of electricity bill by the name of Sh. Somnath Saini. There was NOC from the landlord on the back of the application form. The report also states that the complainant’s father is involved in a civil litigation with Mrs. Prem Sheila Saini and wants to drag the Department in support of his case claiming that Mrs. Saini had obtained the ration card in a fraudulent manner. The contention of the Department is that the Department issues ration card to anyone for drawal of FSA only based on the required documents which Mrs. Saini had furnished at the time of application. FSO Circle 9 has however been advised to keep all the relevant records pertaining to ration card No. 004491 Regn. No. 1894, …. No. 5636 issued to Mrs. Prem Sheila Saini in safe custody of the Circle so that Department is able to produce the actual records to any agency/Court of law, if required in future.
The main point for concern in the case is regarding submission of NOC from Somnath Saini by Mrs. Prem Sheila Saini at the time of application for issue of ration card in 2001. Whereas Somnath Saini had expired in the year 1984. This is an issue which has to be investigated on the basis of supporting documents and contentions from petitioner’s side. The nature of fraud of forgery therefore required independent investigation by Police for which the applicant has to move a proper petition supporting his contentions. The applicant is advised to make his further submissions to the Hon’ble Court or Police in the above context in view of above report of the Department.
The case will be treated as closed in the Commission. ”
6. Thereafter, the matter culminated in the order dated 21st February, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 738/2017 titled ‘IK Saini v. The Department of Food and Supplies & Ors.’, wherein the Court had directed as under:
“The appellant who appears in person states that he would not press this appeal if this Court were to direct the respondents to consider his complaint dated 6th May, 2014, in accordance with
