Sr. No. 24 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 159/2024 in CCP(S) No. 311/2022 1. Vivek Kohli, Age: 59 years Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Kashmir 2. Sareer Ahmed Wani, Age: 51 years Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Division Bijbehara, Anantnag ….Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, G.A V/s Bashir Ahmad Kelam, S/O Mohammad Akbar Kelam, R/O Narupora, Kokernag, Anantnag ....Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Inayat Jamal, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 08.08.2025 1. This Letters Patent Appeal (for short, ‘LPA’) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a contempt petition, i.e., CCP(S) No. 311/2022, titled ‘Basir Ahmad Kelam vs. Basharat Jeelani Kawoosa & Ors.’ 2. The writ petition, WP(C) No. 128/2022, filed by respondent (petitioner therein, was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider payment of the amount admittedly due and payable to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the status of work done and subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment/contract agreement. 3. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the appellants passed consideration order No. JSDB/LS/Actt/2751-55 dated 03.06.2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the work in question had been executed without adherence to codal formalities, without issuance of tender, and without any administrative approval. 4. The judgment/order was not implemented, as the respondent filed Contempt Petition, CCP(S) No. 311/2022, alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 31.01.2022, as such, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.12.2023, rejected the compliance report filed by the appellants and directed that a fresh compliance report be filed in light of the observations made in the said order. 5. The appellants have assailed the order dated 27.12.2023, on the ground that the learned Single Judge, while considering the contempt petition, has exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing fresh direction to them. The learned Single Judge, while examining the consideration order, held that since the allotment and execution of work was not in dispute, the appellants could not reject the claim on the ground of not fulfilling codal formalities, particularly when the work was executed on the basis of an allotment order issued by the appellants. Therefore, the consideration order was not accepted and fresh compliance report was directed to be filed. 6. The contention of the appellants is that they have complied with the directions passed in the writ petition (WP(C) No. 128/2022) by passing a consideration order, therefore, the learned writ Court ought to have dropped the contempt proceedings. Instead, by way of impugned order, the learned writ Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing them to file fresh compliance report. 7. The respondents have raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 the Contempt of Courts Act. The right to appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act arises only against an order or decision of the High Court imposing punishment for contempt. Section 19 of the Act, being relevant, is reproduced as under: “19. Appeals: (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt— (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that— (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed— (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.” 8. The law on this issue is no longer res integra. In “Midnapore Peoples’ Cop Bank Ltd. vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors.” reported as (2006) 5 SCC 399, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while taking note of the several decisions rendered on the scope of Section 19(1) of the Act, held as under:- “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 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 proceeding, 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).” A bare reading of Section 19 of the Act shows that an appeal lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt, whereas, in the present case, the impugned order was only directing them to file fresh compliance report, as such, the same is not maintainable. In the present case, the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 neither imposes any punishment for contempt nor finally determines any right of the parties. It is only an interlocutory order requiring the appellants to file a fresh compliance report. The appellants still have sufficient opportunity to justify their consideration order before the contempt Court. 9. This apart, this LPA is only maintainable in terms of Clause-12 against the final judgment and not against the interlocutory order which do not decide any right and the order against which the appeal has been filed is an interlocutory order and does not fall within the scope of judgment. 10. The above legal position has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 02/2018, “State of J&K & Ors. vs. Mohammad Sultan Mir”. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under: “09. This takes us to another plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if it is assumed that the appeal against the order impugned is not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act, yet the same would be maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. We have given thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter also but do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants-State. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of original jurisdiction to the Division Bench. What would be the judgment in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has been well explained in series of judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court. The word "Judgment" is undoubtedly a concept of finality in broader sense. The judgment could either be a final judgment, preliminary judgment or intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment but it would be a judgment only if it decides some issue or right between the parties finally. The intermediary and interlocutory orders passed during the course of the proceedings which do not determine any right or issue between the parties cannot be said to be the judgment amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Division Bench under Clause-12 of the Letters Patent. It is not the case of the appellants that by virtue of the order impugned the Contempt Court has issued directions which go beyond the scope of the judgment alleged to be violated by the appellants.” 11. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohammad Sultan Mir (supra), we are of the considered view that the present appeal against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings is not maintainable. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Srinagar: 08.08.2025 Michal Sharma/PS Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No