T. Marappan vs The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Salem Housing Unit and Another

K.A. Swami, C.J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 27th March, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge

in Contempt Application No. 1 of 1996.

The learned single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the complainant- appellant herein has failed to prove that the respondents have

committed any contempt. The learned single Judge has also found that the contempt application was not bona fide and the intention of the

complainant was to coerce the officials concerned to make an allotment under the guise that they have disobeyed the order of the court. Under

these circumstances, the learned Judge while dismissing the contempt application has awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to each of the

respondents.

The question for consideration is as to whether this appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is contended before us that

as the order affects the appellant very much and it is a judgment, the appeal is maintainable as per Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It may be

pointed out here that in support of the contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Vidya

Charan Shukla Vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another, . Reliance was placed on paragraph 27 of the above judgment, which reads

thus:

Thus this Court''s special jurisdiction as well as inherent jurisdiction to make order ex debito justitiae on the one hand and to punish for its

contempt on the other, cannot be doubted and if a jurisdiction exists in a court, the court always has the right and duty to exercise that power as

effectively as possible as it is always an inherent jurisdiction of the court to make its power effective even though there is no specific provision of

law to cover that particular power.

There is no doubt that the court has got the power to do ex debito justitiae. But, the question is whether such a power could be exercised in a

proceeding which is not maintainable before it. Therefore, unless this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable, the jurisdiction as stated in paragraph

27 of the aforesaid judgment cannot be exercised. The proceedings in question is the one arising out of Contempt of Courts Act. In this

proceedings there is no other matter decided or dealt with which can be said to fall outside the purview of the Contempt of Courts Act. The

learned single Judge dealt with the question as to whether there has been any violation of the order committed by the respondents as alleged by the

complainant. On a consideration of the entire materials, the learned Judge has held that no such violation or disobedience of the order of this Court

is established. As already pointed out, the learned Judge has held that the petition itself was not bona fide. It cannot be said that awarding of costs

falls outside the purview of contempt proceedings. The application for contempt filed by the complainant can be dismissed even with costs, if the

court finds that such application is not bona fide and tenable. Cost is a part of the cause. In K. Karthikeyan v. The State Bank of Mysore

represented by its Chief Manager, Madras-1, L.P.A. No. 112 of 1995, dated 6.4.1995, a Division Bench of this Court has held that Letters

Patent Appeal preferred against an order dismissing a contempt application was not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The same

position obtained in the instant case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. As such the

position of law is that there should be no further continuation of the case by way of appeal, against the order dismissing the application filed for

contempt of court holding that no commission of contempt of court is established. Therefore in such a case if it is held that the Letters Patent

Appeal is maintainable, it would result in defeating the object contained in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, we are of the view

that this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 6405 of 1996 is also

dismissed.