1 CGHC010246032026 2026:CGHC:27878-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 100 of 2026 1. Arvind Kumar Goyal S/o Late Shri Om Dutt Goyal Aged About 59 Years R/o A-21 Rama Life City Sakri P.S Sakri Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. National Highways Authority of India Through Chairman Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi. 2. Santosh Kumar Yadav Chairman N H A I, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi, 3. Pradeep Kumar Lal Regional Officer Nhai Regional Officer Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4. Mukesh Kumar Parghaniya Project Director Project Implementation Unit Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 5. Vishal Chauhan Member Admin Nhai Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi 6. Reena Baba Saheb Kangale Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, 7. Sanjay Agrawal Collector Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 8. Manish Sahu Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. BP Sharma, Advocate with Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 06.07.2026 1. Challenge in this miscellaneous appeal is to the order dated 19.6.2026 by which learned Judge has dismissed contempt petition filed by appellant. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed a contempt petition seeking willful non-compliance of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in WPC No.529/2023 by which learned writ Court directed the respondent No.4 to writ petition to redress grievance of petitioner/appellant, as canvassed in writ petition, within 90 days from the date of receipt of order. Learned Judge refused to exercise contempt jurisdiction on the ground that contempt petition as framed is not maintainable, however, granted liberty to appellant herein to file fresh contempt petition by arraying person (s) / officer (s) responsible for disobeying the order passed by the Court. 3. This case is listed in default pointing that the appeal is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that when any adverse order is passed against a party, he/she has every 3 right to challenge the same and he cannot be left remediless. If there is a statutory provision regarding appeal, it has to be presumed that an appeal from both sides is envisaged. There cannot be a right to appeal only to one of the affected parties. He further submits that Section 19 of the Act of 1971, which provides for an appeal, must be read to provide for a right of appeal to any of the affected parties because there is no negative provision denying the right of appeal to other than the contemnor. In case at hand, by the order impugned, the contempt petition filed by appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable, therefore, the appeal at the instance of appellant being an aggrieved party is maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this High Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Dubey vs Pradeep Kumar Shukla, reported in 2017 Law Suit (Chh) 45 and the order dated 06.04.2016 of the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of CL Sidar vs Gita Devi Agrawal, reported in 2016 LawSuit (Chh) 126. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. As the objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal is raised by the office, it is required to be tested first. 7. Issue of maintainability of an appeal against dismissal of contempt application under Section 19 of the Act of 1971, is not a new issue. This aspect has been repeatedly argued, 4 deliberated upon and it has consistently been ruled that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 is maintainable only when an order framing charge in contempt proceeding or imposing a punishment for contempt is passed. 8. For clarity, Section 19 of the Act of 1971 is reproduced herein below:- "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:" A bare reading of above quoted provision makes it clear that only in the case of punishment, the affected party has right to file an appeal, if it is by a Single Judge before a Bench of two Judges, and if it is by a Division Bench, before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In case of D.N. Taneja vs Bhajan Lal, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 26, the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "an appeal will lie under Section 19 (1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The High 5 Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it under Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, it does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215. The aggrieved party under section 19 (1) can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court." 10. In case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mahboob S. Alibhoy, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 411, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "words 'any order' must be read with 'decision' so as to exclude any interlocutory order of the High Court from scope of appeal. Unless by the order High Court imposes punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, no appeal will lie against it." 11. In case of J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and other, (1996) 6 SCC 291, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows : “"Therefore, an appeal would lie under Section 19 when an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemnor has been passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondent had not willfully disobeyed the order. So, there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court, Accordingly, an appeal under Section 19 would not lie." 6 12. In case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, has laid down following qua the maintainability of appeal and the remedy available to a party aggrieved of the order passed by the contempt Court, as under: "11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised 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 7 the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the 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).” 13. The Full Bench of this High Court in case of Anil Kumar Dubey (supra), which is also relied upon by learned counsel for appellant, had the occasion to deal with the issue issue of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 and it was observed in the majority judgment thus:- “39. A close analysis of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts as well as the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, 1971, we are clearly of the view that any order which is not an interlocutory order but by which the High Court proceeds to exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, would be appealable. 8 45…..In our view, an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971 would lie against such an order as it is passed in exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. As held by the Apex Court, it would not be appropriate to make a list of such orders. Each case will have to be decided on its own facts. 47.In view of above discussion, we answer the question referred to this Court by holding that an appeal shall lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order framing charge in contempt proceedings.” 14. In view of the above, the legal position is well settled and established that an appeal against the order passed refusing to initiate proceedings for contempt / dropping of contempt proceedings is not maintainable but for an exception carved out in the case of Midnapore (supra). 15. When the impugned order dated 19.6.2026 is tested on the anvil of above rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also Full Bench of this Court, it is clear as day light that by the order impugned, any charge of contempt has not been framed or punishment has not been imposed for contempt. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the contempt petition as not maintainable by opining that once the officers who are alleged to be responsible for the compliance of the order of the Court have been impleaded in their individual capacity, the National Highways Authority of India, being a statutory authority and a juristic entity, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the 9 contempt proceedings. Any order or direction on the merits of the dispute, which is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt or deciding an issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, creating cause of action in favour of appellant for filing this appeal, has not been issued by the order impugned. Therefore, this Court has no manner of doubt that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 against the impugned order is not at all maintainable in the facts of the case. 16. So far as the exception carved out in case of Midnapore’s case (supra) is concerned, the case of appellant does not fall within the said exception also for the reason that there is no provision in the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, which deals with provision of preferring an intra-court appeal, to file an intra court appeal to the Bench of two Judges against any order passed in a proceeding other than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal on merits being not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-