Appeal Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders In Contempt Proceedings: High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh

The High Court clarified that directions issued during the pendency of contempt proceedings, which neither adjudicate liability for contempt nor impose any penalty, are interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed under Section 19.

The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed against an order passed in ongoing contempt proceedings relating to the implementation of an earlier writ judgment concerning the regularisation of the respondent’s services.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, upon hearing the matter, observed: “Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only when a Court has actually decided to punish someone for contempt. Orders that are passed during the case, but do not impose any punishment cannot be challenged under this section. These are normal directions that help the Court to conduct the proceedings, but do not constitute a final determination on the issue of contempt. Therefore, routine orders passed while the contempt case is still ongoing do not come under Section 19 of the Act, because they do not deal with the main question of contempt or impose any penalty”.

Senior AAG Monika Kohli appeared for the appellants, while Advocate P. N. Bhat represented the respondent.

Background

The respondent was engaged as a Casual Labourer and later sought regularisation under SRO 64 of 1994. His disengagement was set aside in writ proceedings, and directions were issued to consider his case for regularisation. When the directions were not implemented as per the writ judgment, the respondent then initiated contempt proceedings.

During the pendency of the contempt petition, the appellants passed a consideration order rejecting regularisation but were directed again to file a fresh compliance report. The appellants filed the present LPA, contending that such a direction amounted to judicial overreach by the contempt court.

Court’s Observation

The J&K and Ladakh High Court examined Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and held that the statutory right of appeal arises only against an order punishing for contempt. Orders that merely assist the continuation of proceedings or require compliance reports, the Court held, do not decide culpability or impose any penalty and therefore are not appealable.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., the Court reiterated that appeals do not lie against orders initiating contempt, declining to proceed, dropping proceedings, or issuing directions unrelated to punishment. The Bench further referred to its own earlier decisions in State of J&K v. Mohd. Tayoub Leharwal and UT of J&K v. Shahnaza Parveen to reinforce that only orders with finality affecting rights can be challenged.

The Court noted that the impugned direction merely required the filing of a fresh compliance report and did not determine any rights of the parties or conclude the issue of contempt. The appellants retained full opportunity to justify their actions before the Single Judge, and therefore, the appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion

The Court held that the present appeal was not maintainable as it was preferred against an interlocutory order passed during contempt proceedings, which neither adjudicated contempt nor imposed punishment. The LPA was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Commissioner Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development & PR & Another v. Ryaz Ahmed

Appearances

Appellant: Monika Kohli, Senior AAG

Respondent: P. N. Bhat for the Respondent

Click here to read/download Judgment