Ram Chandra Asthana v. Pradeep Kumar Dubey Prin. Secy. U.P. Legislative Assembly Secy)

passing the order deciding the merits of the dispute between the parties and correctness of the order passed in compliance of the judgment passed in the writ petition. He very emphatically argued that it is the settled proposition of law that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment and order, violation of which is alleged by the contempt applicant.

4. Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal. He submits that Appeal under Section 19 lies as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has simply framed the charges and has granted opportunity to the appellant herein to file his response. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others versus Chunnilal Nanda and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that 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.

5. For ready reference, paragraph no.11 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein-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 the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. 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 3 CONA No. 3 of 2025 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 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). The first point is answered accordingly."

6. Further, to strengthen his argument/objection, he placed reliance on the para no. 18 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla and others versus Prakash Kumar Dixit, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1874. Paragraph no.18 of the same is quoted herein-below:- "18 The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench, in paragraph 52, noted the submission of the respondent that the judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystallizing any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24 December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission and observed that "in view of our understanding of the impugned judgment, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has not decided any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties" other than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. The judgment of the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that whether the appeal was maintainable would have to be construed on a plain reading of the judgment of the Single Judge. Two aspects were covered by the judgment of the Single Judge : Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order dated 24 December 2019; and Secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG. 4 CONA No. 3 of 2025 The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at the present stage. The finding that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG would be amenable to an appeal in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), more particularly in paragraph 11(V) which has been extracted above."

7. Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order inasmuch as that by the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, the Contempt Court has not punished the appellant but has simply fixed the case for 01.09.2025 for orders on sentence by granting the appellant herein an opportunity to file his response and as such in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra), the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

8. Confronting the aforesaid objection regarding the maintainability of the instant appeal, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in contempt jurisdiction has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment and order, violation of which is alleged by the contempt-applicant and as such the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is not sustainable being passed by the learned Contempt Court exceeding its jurisdiction. He further submits that by means of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, the learned Contempt Court by fixing

01.09.2025 as the date for orders on sentence, has deprived the petitioner to defend the charge framed against him and as such, the impugned order is bad in law being against the principles of natural justice. He very categorically submitted that the tenor of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is such that the learned Contempt Court without affording a reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant has taken a definitive action to penalize the appellant herein. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra versus Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 5435. He drew the attention of this Court towards the paragraph no. 69 of the aforesaid judgment which is extracted herein-below for ready reference: "69. The pith and substance of the aforesaid discussion, the legal principles involved and circumstances when an appeal may lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of 5 CONA No. 3 of 2025 Courts Act, 1971 and when a Special Appeal may lie from an order passed in contempt jurisdiction can be summarized as under:- (A) Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only when the Contempt Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The essence of this provision is to provide a remedy against decision where the court has taken a definitive action to penalize a contemnor. This Includes orders that impose fines, imprisonment, or other punitive measures directly related to the contemptuous behavior. Interlocutory orders, which do not entail punishment for contempt, do not fall within the ambit of Section 19. Such orders may include directions to produce documents, file affidavits, or procedural directives necessary for the continuation of the contempt proceedings. These are routine judicial actions that facilitate the progress of the case but do not constitute a final determination on the issue of contempt. Routine orders passed during the pendency of contempt proceedings are also, excluded from the scope of Section 19. These orders are typically procedural and administrative in nature, ensuring that the proceedings move forward without addressing the substantive issues of the original case or the merits of the contempt. (B)...................."

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 though not an order of punishment but at the same time, it is of such a nature that is tantamount to entail punishment. For ready reference, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:- "13. In view of above facts and discussions, the affidavit of compliance dated

14.07.2025 filed by the respondent is hereby rejected. Following charge is framed against the respondent/contemnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971. "Why the respondent/contemnor, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Principal Secretary, U.P. Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, Lucknow be not punished for willfully flouting the order of the writ Court dated 04.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3340 of 2000, by not giving notional promotion to the applicant on the posts of Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Special Secretary, those were given to the juniors to the applicant, namely, Radhey Shyam Yadav and Sarvoday Kumar Gupta."

14. List this case on 01.09.2025 for order on sentence.

15. In the meantime, respondent/contemnor may file response.

16. On the next date, respondent/contemnor shall appear before this Court." 6 CONA No. 3 of 2025

10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order reflects that the learned Single Judge has fixed 01.09.2025 for sentence meaning thereby that the punishment has already been made definite.

11. Taking into consideration the averments made by the learned Senior Advocate that the appellant has not been afforded due opportunity to file his response to the charge framed against him, without adverting on the question of maintainability or otherwise on the merits of the case, the impugned order may be modified only to the extent that a week's time be granted to the appellant herein to file response to the charge framed against him and thereafter fix the case for orders.

12. Accordingly, the appellant hereto, who is respondent/contemnor in the Contempt Application in question, is granted a week's time from today to file his response in terms of the order dated 14.08.2025 (supra) passed by the learned Contempt Court in the Contempt Application. It is expected from the learned Contempt Court to pass any appropriate order in the Contempt Application considering the explanation/response of the contemnor.

13. The Contempt Application in question would be listed on 08th of September, 2025 for orders.

14. Before parting with, it is made clear that we have neither entered into the merits of the case nor have interfered with the impugned order dated

14.08.2025 (supra) so the learned Contempt Court may pass any appropriate order in the Contempt Application in question.

15. This appeal is hereby disposed of in limine in terms of the aforesaid order.

16. No order as to cost. August 29, 2025 Vinay/Abhishek- (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

passing the order deciding the merits of the dispute between the parties and correctness of the order passed in compliance of the judgment passed in the writ petition. He very emphatically argued that it is the settled proposition of law that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment and order, violation of which is alleged by the contempt applicant.

4. Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal. He submits that Appeal under Section 19 lies as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has simply framed the charges and has granted opportunity to the appellant herein to file his response. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others versus Chunnilal Nanda and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that 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.

5. For ready reference, paragraph no.11 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein-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 the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. 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 3 CONA No. 3 of 2025 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 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). The first point is answered accordingly."

6. Further, to strengthen his argument/objection, he placed reliance on the para no. 18 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla and others versus Prakash Kumar Dixit, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1874. Paragraph no.18 of the same is quoted herein-below:- "18 The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench, in paragraph 52, noted the submission of the respondent that the judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystallizing any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24 December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission and observed that "in view of our understanding of the impugned judgment, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has not decided any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties" other than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. The judgment of the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that whether the appeal was maintainable would have to be construed on a plain reading of the judgment of the Single Judge. Two aspects were covered by the judgment of the Single Judge : Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order dated 24 December 2019; and Secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG. 4 CONA No. 3 of 2025 The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at the present stage. The finding that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG would be amenable to an appeal in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), more particularly in paragraph 11(V) which has been extracted above."

7. Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order inasmuch as that by the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, the Contempt Court has not punished the appellant but has simply fixed the case for 01.09.2025 for orders on sentence by granting the appellant herein an opportunity to file his response and as such in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra), the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

8. Confronting the aforesaid objection regarding the maintainability of the instant appeal, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in contempt jurisdiction has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment and order, violation of which is alleged by the contempt-applicant and as such the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is not sustainable being passed by the learned Contempt Court exceeding its jurisdiction. He further submits that by means of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, the learned Contempt Court by fixing

01.09.2025 as the date for orders on sentence, has deprived the petitioner to defend the charge framed against him and as such, the impugned order is bad in law being against the principles of natural justice. He very categorically submitted that the tenor of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is such that the learned Contempt Court without affording a reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant has taken a definitive action to penalize the appellant herein. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra versus Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 5435. He drew the attention of this Court towards the paragraph no. 69 of the aforesaid judgment which is extracted herein-below for ready reference: "69. The pith and substance of the aforesaid discussion, the legal principles involved and circumstances when an appeal may lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of 5 CONA No. 3 of 2025 Courts Act, 1971 and when a Special Appeal may lie from an order passed in contempt jurisdiction can be summarized as under:- (A) Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only when the Contempt Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The essence of this provision is to provide a remedy against decision where the court has taken a definitive action to penalize a contemnor. This Includes orders that impose fines, imprisonment, or other punitive measures directly related to the contemptuous behavior. Interlocutory orders, which do not entail punishment for contempt, do not fall within the ambit of Section 19. Such orders may include directions to produce documents, file affidavits, or procedural directives necessary for the continuation of the contempt proceedings. These are routine judicial actions that facilitate the progress of the case but do not constitute a final determination on the issue of contempt. Routine orders passed during the pendency of contempt proceedings are also, excluded from the scope of Section 19. These orders are typically procedural and administrative in nature, ensuring that the proceedings move forward without addressing the substantive issues of the original case or the merits of the contempt. (B)...................."

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 though not an order of punishment but at the same time, it is of such a nature that is tantamount to entail punishment. For ready reference, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:- "13. In view of above facts and discussions, the affidavit of compliance dated

14.07.2025 filed by the respondent is hereby rejected. Following charge is framed against the respondent/contemnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971. "Why the respondent/contemnor, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Principal Secretary, U.P. Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, Lucknow be not punished for willfully flouting the order of the writ Court dated 04.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3340 of 2000, by not giving notional promotion to the applicant on the posts of Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Special Secretary, those were given to the juniors to the applicant, namely, Radhey Shyam Yadav and Sarvoday Kumar Gupta."

14. List this case on 01.09.2025 for order on sentence.

15. In the meantime, respondent/contemnor may file response.

16. On the next date, respondent/contemnor shall appear before this Court." 6 CONA No. 3 of 2025

10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order reflects that the learned Single Judge has fixed 01.09.2025 for sentence meaning thereby that the punishment has already been made definite.

11. Taking into consideration the averments made by the learned Senior Advocate that the appellant has not been afforded due opportunity to file his response to the charge framed against him, without adverting on the question of maintainability or otherwise on the merits of the case, the impugned order may be modified only to the extent that a week's time be granted to the appellant herein to file response to the charge framed against him and thereafter fix the case for orders.

12. Accordingly, the appellant hereto, who is respondent/contemnor in the Contempt Application in question, is granted a week's time from today to file his response in terms of the order dated 14.08.2025 (supra) passed by the learned Contempt Court in the Contempt Application. It is expected from the learned Contempt Court to pass any appropriate order in the Contempt Application considering the explanation/response of the contemnor.

13. The Contempt Application in question would be listed on 08th of September, 2025 for orders.

14. Before parting with, it is made clear that we have neither entered into the merits of the case nor have interfered with the impugned order dated

14.08.2025 (supra) so the learned Contempt Court may pass any appropriate order in the Contempt Application in question.

15. This appeal is hereby disposed of in limine in terms of the aforesaid order.

16. No order as to cost. August 29, 2025 Vinay/Abhishek- (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench