IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Con.APP(C).No. 1 of 2009 (S) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.60/2009 Dated 26/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.S.ROSAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.SAMUEL, RETIRED CHIEF SECTION OFFICER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- K.S.SREENIVASAN, THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R THIS CONTEMPT APPEALS (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case Appeal No.1 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. This Contempt Appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the correctness or otherwise of the judgment in COC No.60/09 dated, 26-2-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the contempt petition filed by the appellant/petitioner herein. 2. In our view, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act itself is not maintainable. In view of the clear law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra V. Mr.Justice Gatikrushna Misra, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court (1975) 3 SCC 535) and in the case of D.N.Taneja V. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 26, it is clear that an appeal under Section 19(1) is available only to the contemner against whom there is proposal for punishment for contempt. Keeping in view the fact that the right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the statute. 3. Section 19(1) would clearly indicate that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of a High Court in the exercise of its Cont. Case Appeal No.1 OF 2009 :: 2 :: jurisdiction to punish for contempt - 1. where the order or decision is that of a Single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the court, 2. where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court. 4. As laid down by the apex court, it is only the right of appeal given to the contemner under Section 19(1) and not to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant is the appellant/petitioner before us aggrieved by the order of rejection of her contempt petition in COC No.60/09. In view of the clear law laid down by the apex court, this appeal is not entitled to maintain under Section 19(1). The appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes