1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460/10 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 211/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2005. Bhaskar Aatmaramji Gade .vs. Mr. Kishor Narayanrao Borkar, President, Apang Jeevan Vikas Sanstha & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. G.R. Sadar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2011. 1] This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. 2] Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3/contemnors, who have been discharged by the learned Single Judge submits that an appeal is not tenable under the Contempt of Courts Act in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. .vs. Pastorate Committee of the Saint Andrews Church reported in 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 661 followed 2 by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 42/09 decided on 17.4.2009. This Court has taken a view that an order of the learned Single Judge discharging a party from proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act does not determine any right or interest of parties to the lis, and, therefore, such an order is not judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and as such, is not appealable. 3] Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for the appellant, however, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Cooperative Bank Limited & others .vs. Chunilal Nanda and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows :- “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 3 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 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 4 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). The first point is answered accordingly.” According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the present case falls under Clause (V) above and, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has made incorrect observations about the order dated 27.7.2009 to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled under the order to stay away from the selection process. 4] We do not see how it can be said that any right of the petitioner is decided against him by the said observation. In fact, Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for the appellant, fairly accepted that the appellant’s appeal against the order dated 27.7.2009 was preferred and dismissed in limine by a Division Bench. We are of the view that the Letters Patent Appeal is not tenable on this count. 5] Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for the appellant, further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 27.7.2009, the 5 respondents have issued a letter dated 31.8.2009 which is illegal and his challenge to the same has been foreclosed as a result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We do not agree with the said submission since the letter dated 31.8.2009 was not even placed before the learned Single Judge. Since the learned Single Judge has not made any observation in the judgment regarding the letter dated 31.8.2009, needless to say that challenge to the said letter dated 31.8.2009 is open and has not been foreclosed. 6] In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Judge Judge J.