KURAPATI STEEVAN Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 09.05.2016, Contempt Case No.614 of 2015 was dismissed by a learned Judge holding that no willful disobedience was made out on the part of the respondents in relation to the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by him in W.P.M.P.No.47844 of 2014 in W.P.No.38238 of 2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner in the contempt case filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Registry however raised an objection as to how the appeal was maintainable. The matter was therefore posted for hearing before this Court on the issue of maintainability of the appeal.

(2.) Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that this appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that restrictions under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, the Act of 1971) would have no application. He placed reliance on case law to support his contention:

(3.) In V.M.MANOHAR PRASAD V/s. N.RATNAM RAJU , the Supreme Court was considering a case where an appeal was filed against further directions given by a learned Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction and the Division Bench of the High Court had held that such an appeal was not maintainable. In this situation, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable as an appeal would lie to the Court normally exercising appellate jurisdiction against directions given by a Court without jurisdiction. Similarly, in IN THE MATTER OF : STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ETC.. , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a case where a learned Judge, exercising contempt jurisdiction, issued directions. In such circumstances, the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was held to be maintainable. These cases are therefore different from the present case.