ASHIT SANA Petitioner Through Mr. O.P. Khadaria, Advocate, v. MOHAN TEWARI MD & ORS.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29^^ July, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No. 692/2010. The learned single Judge while dealing with the application for contempt has passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment letter which has been issued to him dated 26.7.2011 wherein he had been posted under Project Head Ircon, Manglore Project. His contention is that he was working as a translator/interpreter of the French 2011:DHC:8332-DB if Language: he has been posted in the Engineering Domain; further the Mangalore Project has since culminated. His contention is that this posting order is issued to overreach the order of the Court; it is malafide for the reason that the petitioner was litigating with the respondent. Contentions have been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. He states that Manglore Project is yet in progress and in fact there are no posts for interpreter/translator of the French Language in Manglore; nevertheless to implement and honour the order of this Court the petitioner has been given a posting order at Manglore. Respondent will on affidavit place on record the projects which have been undertaken by him as also as to till when Manglore project is in progress, also the duties which are to be assigned to the petitioner in this project.. The said affidavit be filed in two weeks with advance copy to the petitioner. CM No. 13000/2011 (for direction) Counsel for the respondent accepts Notice. Out of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- which had already been deposited by the respondent in this Court a sum of Rs.10,00,000/be released to the petitioner. This will be subject to the outcome offinal settlement of account between the j parties."

3. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned senior counsel that the learned single Judge has passed a direction in the contempt petition which she could not have done and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. He has commended us to the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Limited and Others versus Chuniiai Nanda and Others,(2006)5 SCC

399. Learned senior counsel has invited our attention to paragraph 11 of the decision. It reads as follows:

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 _J order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under A Section 19 of the CO 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 I 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, therefpre, 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 J 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."

4. On a perusal of paragraph 11.V there can be no trace of doubt that the present appeal is maintainable.

5. In course of hearing, a suggestion was given to the learned counsel for the parties that the appellant must first reinstate the respondent at the headquarters and thereafter they may transfer him to Manglore, if so required. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly agreed that the order of reinstatement shall be passed posting him at the headquarters and thereafter appropriate steps shall be taken. As further agreed to, a sum of Rs.33 lacs, which has been deposited before the Registry, shall be withdrawn by the - respondent. Interest accrued, if any, shall be paid to the respondent. The Registrar General is directed to prepare a bank draft drawn on a nationalized bank in the name of the respondent and give it to him on proper identification. In case any further sum is payable as claimed by the respondent, it is open to him to take appropriate proceedings; as advised in law.

6. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in the contempt petition and accordingly the same stands dropped. The present appeal is also disposed of accordingly." ^ In view of the aforesaid, the contempt proceeding is \ ■ dropped.

CHIEF JUSTICE -i(^ SANJIV KHANNA,J. AUGUST 19,2011 VKR /