Provision Of Appeal Under Contempt of Courts Act Is Extremely Limited And Regulated: Delhi High Court
Observing that the provision of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extremely limited and regulated, the Delhi High Court last week said the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or punished under the law and in no other case.A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said an order rejecting a...
Observing that the provision of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extremely limited and regulated, the Delhi High Court last week said the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or punished under the law and in no other case.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said an order rejecting a petition for contempt is not open to challenge as an appeal lies only when the court has exercised the power to hold a contemnor guilty.
"In other words, denial of an order not holding a contemnor guilty or punishing a contemnor, is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act," said the court, adding that for an appeal to be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act there has to be a definite finding against a contemnor, or else there cannot be any right to appeal.
The bench made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Sarojini Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti against a single judge order rejecting its contempt petition. The appellant is an unregistered organisation of resident slum dwellers residing in jhuggis for decades in city's Sarojini Nagar.
The single judge vide order dated July 6, 2022 had found that the cluster in question was not a notified cluster and thus the proposed action of demolition by the respondents was not violative of the orders passed in Ajay Maken & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
It was also observed by the single judge that the case of Ajay Maken dealt with a JJ cluster which was notified by DUSIB, whereas the JJ cluster relating to the appellant organisation was not enlisted in the said list, thereby holding them not entitled to the benefits of DUSIB.
The single judge had thus said the proposed action of demolition would not invite contempt action for wilful violation of order passed in Ajay Maken case.
Dismissing the appeal, the division bench upheld the impugned order by observing that there are no circumstances giving rise to any suspicion of holding the respondents guilty of any offence.
"It is an established concept of law that a contempt is only between the alleged Contemner and the Court. Appellant by setting into motion the machinery of the Court for issuance of contempt has failed to bring to notice anything which constitutes contempt by respondents, therefore no act of contempt has been committed by them. As such the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the contempt petition was not maintainable and dismissed the same. So much so, the learned Single Judge has rightly expressed that it will be open to petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court, if not already filed, to establish their case as to entitlement to benefits of the judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken"
The court also noted that various JJ dwellers, who are a part of the appellant organisation in the appeal along with Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti, Netaji Nagar have already filed as many as 10 writ petitions, if not more before this Court.
"Not only that, some JJ dwellers therein have also obtained favourable orders in their favour. 11. Also, we are in complete consonance with the order of the learned Single Judge, who, according to us, has rightly held that the action of the respondents in demolishing the Clusters is not violative of the orders of this Court in Ajay Maken," it added.
Title: SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055