N RAMANUJA Vs. P SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a notice/dated 12-10-2001 issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the appellants herein to appear before this Court so as to answer the charge of Contempt of Court viz., for violating the orders of the High Court dated 19-12-2000 in Writ Petition No. 28597 of 1995 and show cause as to why they shall not be committed to prison for violation of the said orders.

(2.) To a query as to whether an appeal is maintainable against issuance of a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(for short 'the Act') read with the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 (for short "the Rules") framed by this Court, Mr.S. Venkata Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that an appeal is maintainable both under Section 19 of the Act as also Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. According to the learned Counsel, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to issue a notice at the first instance as to why a proceeding under the Act shall not be initiated. According to the learned Counsel, a notice directing the appellants to show cause as to why they shall not be committed to prison is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Section 19 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that even if wider meaning is given thereto, an appeal shall be maintainable only when a finding is arrived at to the effect that the appellants are guilty of commission of Contempt of Court.