The appeal process under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act requires a connection with an order punishing for contempt; proceedings not fulfilling this criterion are non-appealable.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This contempt appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , arises out of the judgment dated 06.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Con. Case(C)No.456 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant-petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C)No.22499 of 2024. By the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2025, the learned Single Judge closed the contempt proceedings, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate the matter in the pending writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“2. Even though the respondents sought sanction from the Government as per Annex.B, the same was rejected. Subsequently, yet another communication was issued by the respondents, as evidenced by Annex.A1 dated 25.08.2025. Today, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that, the said request is also rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, in Ext.P19, produced along with the writ petition, the amount admitted was Rs.50,11,749/- and therefore, the respondents ought to have remitted the said amount, in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. However, on going through Ext.P19, it can be seen that, even though a final bill amount is reckoned as Rs.50,11,749/-, it is specifically mentioned therein that, the same is pending approval with the Government and once approval from the Government is obtained, amount can be disbursed.

4. Thus it is evident that, the amount referred to in Ext.P19 in its entirety, could not be released on their own, as it requires administrative sanction from the Government. Even though the respondent had attempted to obtain the administrative sanction, as evidenced by Annex.A and communication which resulted in Annex.B, the same is reported to have been rejected.

In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the respondents cannot be proceeded against, in this contempt proceedings, in view of the fact that, respondents had already paid the amount to the petitioner, which could have been paid on their own. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, the remaining amount can only be released, after obtaining necessary sanction from the Government, which is a matter to be agitated in the writ petition. Therefore, I do not find any willful violation of the directions issued by this Court and hence this contempt of court proceeding is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate the matter in the writ petition.”

2. On 05.02.2026, when this matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner sought time to address arguments, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt.Gen) v.

Bijukumar S. [2025 (2) KHC 384]

3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner.

4. On the question of maintainability of this contempt appeal, we notice that the said issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granites [2025 (1) KLT 287], wherein it was held that for an appeal to lie underSection 19(1) of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971, the impugned order must be inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt and cannot be independent of it. It must flow from the order punishing for contempt. All procedural steps leading to the order of punishment cannot be termed as incidental to the order punishing for contempt. For the second part of clause (IV) inMidnapore Peoples’ Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda[(2006) 5 SCC 399]to apply, there must be first an order punishing for contempt. This position of law is expounded also by earlier decisions on the subject by th