The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.3147 of 2024 Deepak Kumar Mohanty …. Appellant Represented By Adv. – Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Arvind Singh and another …. Respondents Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Rout, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 28.07.2025 Order No. 03. 1. The writ appeal bring into question the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2024 passed in CONTC No.5882 of 2021. 2. Since we are disposing of the matter by answering the preliminary issue whether the writ appeal would be maintainable against such an order passed in a contempt petition, instead of going into the details of the facts of the case we are dealing with the principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned counsel relies on the decision rendered in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Page 1 of 5 Chunilal Nanda and others: (2006) 5 SCC 399 (paragraph-11 of Manupatra print), which is reproduced below: “11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. 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, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. the contemnor, III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of „jurisdiction to punish for contempt‟ and therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is Page 2 of 5 open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).” 3. It is submitted in view of paragraph-11.V the writ appeal would be maintainable as the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 25.06.2024 at paragraphs-10 and 11 has decided on the merits of the case as far as the rival contentions are concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the petitioner had approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar challenging his disengagement from service by the respondents. The agreement between the respondent and the service provider of the petitioner has been terminated and he apprehends any observation made in the judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed in CONTC petition would affect his case in any adjudicatory forum. 5. Learned Senior Counsel raises a preliminary objection that the writ appeal is not maintainable against the judgment dated 25.06.2024 as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act so also clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Section 4 of the Orissa High Court Order-1948. 6. We refer the paragraphs i.e. 11.I, 11.II, 11.III so also 11.IV as decided by the Apex Court regarding maintainability of appeal U/s.19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against order passed by learned Single Judge. It has been held intra-Court appeal would not lie against the order passed by learned Single Judge and in certain Page 3 of 5 case the appeal would lie to the Apex Court under Article 132 of the Constitution. 7. In our considered opinion upon perusal of the judgment rendered, it cannot be held that the learned Single Judge has decided any issue on merit or made any direction relating to the merits of the disputes between the parties in paragaraphs-10 and 11 of the judgment dated 25.06.2024. To us, the concluding paragraphs-12 and 13 are the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, which are reproduced herein: “12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner. In fact, this Court does not find any contempt being committed by the alleged contemnor. 13. Accordingly, the contempt is dropped and the CONTC is disposed of.” 8. In our considered opinion and in view of the judgment in Mednapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank (supra), paragraph-11 the writ appeal would not be maintainable as against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby it has been held that “this Court does not find any contempt being committed by the alleged contemnor” and also it is observed that “the contempt is dropped and the CONTC is disposed of.” 9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mishra standing tall at the Bar submits that the petitioner may not apprehend that his case would be prejudiced in any manner before any forum in view of the observations made in the judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed in CONTC No.5882 of 2021. Page 4 of 5 10. We may clarify that the petitioner may not apprehend any such legal consequence of the CONTC petition as we have observed that the learned Single Judge has not observed anything regarding merits as would be evident from the paragraphs-12 and 13 of the order and at paragraph-11 the learned Single Judge has referred to the submissions of the respondents. 11. In view of the above discussions, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha/Gs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Jul-2025 13:54:38 Page 5 of 5