VED PRAKASH KAPOOR Vs. KAMLA PRASAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the appellants against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.5.1995, the concluding portion of which is as under : "In view of my discussions made above, I hold that the opposite parties have flouted the Hon'ble Courts' directions and the opposite parties are guilty of the contempt of Court. However, the present Director General of Police was not a party to the Selection Committee and in his affidavit it has been made abundantly clear that he was not informed of the Court's order earlier as he was not holding the post of the D.G.P., U. P.. Lucknow and as such he should be exonerated from the alleged charge of contempt of Court and he will abide by any decision of this Hon'ble Court. I shall consider his case regarding his punishment at all, if any, afterwards. I direct the opposite parties to promote Kamla Prasad Rai as directed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. L. Yadav and Kamla Prasad Rai should be given all benefits of promotion including his salary and seniority accordingly. Regarding the compliance of the Hon'ble Court's Order, the opposite parties are directed to file an affidavit by 17.5.1995. Respondent No. 1 is also directed to attend the Court on that date, if an affidavit of compliance is not filed." By the above judgment, the learned Judge has held that the appellants had committed the contempt of Court by flouting the judgment/directions given by this Court; but no sentence was awarded and an opportunity was given to them to comply with the orders of this Court.

(2.) SRI V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has made two submissions in support of this appeal, namely, (0 the appellants have complied with the earlier judgment/order of this Court and. therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to declare the appellants guilty of the Contempt of Court ; and (ii) it was not open to the learned singe Judge to go into the comparative merits of the claims of the respondent and others. SRI Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has. apart from disputing the aforesaid contentions, contended that this appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) IN the State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another, JT 1996 (6) SC 151. the relevant extract of which is reproduced below, the Supreme Court has held that unless the 'order' or 'decision imposes a punishment for contempt, appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable :