IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.435 of 2009 1.YUGAL KISHORE MISHRA SON OF SRI CHITTRANJAN MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANDANWAR,P.O. AND P.S. PATHARGAMA,DISTRICT GODDA 2.BIRENDRA PRASAD SON OF SRI SHIWA PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HANUMAN NAGAR,LIG 15/535, LOHIA NAGAR,P.S.PATRAKAR NAGAR DIST.PATNA--- APPELLANTS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESSOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN,PATNA 2.SPECIAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT,SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3.DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT IRRIGATION)DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4.SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5.BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, BEILEY ROAD, PATNA 6.SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ---CONTEMNORS/OPPOSITE PARTIES ----- For the appellant : Mr.Gautam Saha For opp.party nos. 1 to 4 : Mr.Lalit Kishore, AAG III & Mr.Piyush Lall, AC to AAG III For opp.patty nos. 5 & 6 : Mr.Sanjay Pandey ----- 05/ 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission. A preliminary objection has been taken by learned counsel for the State as to the maintainability of this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.07.2009 whereby the prayer to revive the contempt petition on the ground of non- compliance in true spirit of earlier order of this Court has been rejected. 2 Learned counsel for the State placed Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra.Vrs. Mahboob S.Allibhoy and another reported in 1996(4) Supreme Court Cases 411 to submit that no appeal is maintainable against an order dropping a proceeding for contempt or refusing to initiate a proceeding for contempt. This view has been arrived at after discussing the earlier judgment and by laying emphasis upon the last few words in Section 19(1)- “……… any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt……” The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clarified that often a misconception arises on the basis of the word „any‟ occurring before the word „order‟ or „decision‟ but that is on account of the word „or‟ used before the word „decision‟ which perfects the right of appeal against any order or decision but the effect of such order or decision passed in exercise of jurisdiction under the Act must be - to punish for contempt. 3 The same interpretation would follow from the use of the expression- “an appeal shall lie as of right…………….” In contempt jurisdiction a party who informed the court and got the contempt proceeding initiated has no locus standi in the matter and there can be no occasion to create right of appeal in such a person. The right of appeal, therefore, can be vested only in the person who suffers due to any order or decision to punish for contempt. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to take us to the merits of the matter but so far as the preliminary objection is concerned, we found nothing of substance in his submissions. Hence we have no hesitation in upholding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of nature of the order under appeal. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)