JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. We have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
2. The instant appeal under Section 19 of the, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is sought to be filed against the order dated 5.5.2006 passed by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J. in Contempt Petition No. 246 of 2006 whereby he discharged the notices and rejected the contempt petition.
3. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The contempt petition was filed by the present appellant Maheshwari Prasad Misra against Smt. Achala Khanna, Director, State Education Research and Training Board, U.P., Nisatganj, Lucknow with the allegations that in spite of the order dated 11.5.2001 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18066 of 2001, he had not been admitted to Special B.T.C. Training Course, treating him in the category "physically handicapped". In pursuance of an advertisement in 1988 he had applied for selection in Special B.T.C. Course under the 'General Category' without claiming any reservation. He was not selected. He preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31155 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction that his representation be decided. The representation was rejected by order dated 18.8.1999. He challenged it by means of another Writ Petition. That was allowed, stating that the opposite party should accept the physically handicapped certificate filed by the applicant, even though he had not applied as such and in case his merit was higher than the last candidate selected in physically handicapped category, he should also be allowed to undergo the training. In compliance of the writ order, the appellant was asked to submit his physically handicapped certificate. The same was sent for verification to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad, which had allegedly issued the same. The Principal of the Medical College endorsed the certificate that no such Society, namely, Viklang Sahayata Society was ever run by the Orthopedic Department of the College.
4. The contention of the appellant before the Hon'ble Single Judge was that subsequently he was declared physically handicapped by a Board. Learned Single Judge took the view that the certificate submitted by him was found to be doubtful and as such it could not amount to wilful or deliberate violation of the orders of the Writ Court. On consideration of the matter, we are firmly of the opinion that the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not at all maintainable. The Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and Anr. that no appeal is maintainable against an order dropping proceedings for contempt or refusing to initiate a proceeding for contempt. It has also been ruled that even if no appeal is maintainable on behalf of the person at whose instance a proceeding for contempt had been initiated and later dropped or whose petition for initiating contempt proceedings has been dismissed, is not without any remedy. In appropriate cases, he can invoke the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court on being satisfied that it was a fit case where proceedings for contempt should have been initiated can set aside the orders passed by the High Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of A.P.Verma, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow and Ors. v. U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association Lucknow and Ors. (1998) 3 UPLBEC 2333 in support of his argument that the- appeal is well maintainable. However, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this ruling cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. Moreover, the facts of the ruling referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant were entirely on different footing. It was held in that case that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lay against any order or decision including an order passed at intermediate stage, by High Court given in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. There the order assailed was one holding a person guilty of non-compliance of the directions of Court, but he was not punished for contempt. Instead, a direction was made to him to comply with the direction which was said to have been flouted. This order was held to be amenable to appeal. Such is not the case here. In the present case, the sum and substance is that no direction has been made by the learned Single Judge who has rejected the contempt petition with the reasoning which we set out in the earlier part of this order.
6. 'Civil contempt' as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. No such case could be made out by the appellant before the Hon'ble Single Judge. Judged from this angle also, the rejection of the contempt petition cannot be found faulty.
7. There is yet another reason that against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 18066 of 2001 Special Appeal No, 938 of 2001 has also been filed by the State which is pending, though no interim order has been. granted.
8. On overall consideration of all the facets of the controversy, this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable and it is dismissed at threshold.