Patna High Court – Orders
Anant Prasad Singh vs Rakesh Narayan Singh on 3 April, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.277 of 2026
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3000 of 2025
======================================================
Anant Prasad Singh & Anr.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Narayan Singh & Ors.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Deepika Sharma, AC to SC-15
For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 03-04-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Mr.
Anant Prasad Singh and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the State, challenging the order dated 18.03.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No. 3000 of 2025,
arising out of Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 909 of 2025.
2. From the impugned order, it appears that the
learned Single Judge, while hearing the contempt proceeding,
came to hold that the appellant no.1, Mr. Anant Prasad Singh,
had not been able to explain as to why the co-ordinate Bench
was not informed by his Assisting Counsel for the State,
appellant no.2, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, about the challenge
of the order of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The learned Single Judge further observed that some facts were
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/15
not brought to the notice of the Court and, in such
circumstances, the Court directed to initiate contempt
proceedings against both the appellants and asked them to file
show cause for misleading different Benches of this Court.
3. The Stamp Reporter has pointed out certain defects
with respect to the maintainability of the present Letters Patent
Appeal, as it arises out of an M.J.C. proceeding.
4. The learned Advocate General submitted that, in
view of the provisions contemplated under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’), an appeal under
section 19 thereof could be maintainable from any order or
decision of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, and if the order or the decision is that of a Single
Judge, then it is to be before a Bench of not less than two
Judges. If there is no punishment for contempt, appeal under
section 19 would not be maintainable. A direction of initiation
of contempt proceeding cannot be the subject matter of appeal
under section 19. In support of his submission, the learned
Advocate General placed reliance upon a Division Bench
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 6th February 2026 in
Cont. App.(C)2/2026 & CM APPL. 8303/2026, CM APPL.
8304/2026 & Other analogous cases, [Raghunath Singh &
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/15
Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.], wherein it has been held
as follows:
“20. However, the law is well settled in
this regard. Contempt appeals under Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts are maintainable only when
there is a punishment for contempt. The Supreme
Court in the decision in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399,
held that an appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be
maintainable only against an order or decision of
the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction
to punish for contempt i.e., an order imposing
punishment for contempt. The relevant portion of
the said decision reads as under:
“10. Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (“the CC Act” for short) provides
for appeals. Relevant portion of sub-section (1)
thereof is extracted below:
“19. (1) An appeal shall lie as of right
from any order or decision of the High Court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt–
(a) where the order or decision is that of
a Single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two
Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of
a Bench, to the Supreme Court:”
The scope of Section 19 has been
considered by this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v.
Justice Gatikrushna Misra [(1975) 3 SCC 535 :
1975 SCC (Cri) 99 : AIR 1974 SC 2255],
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
4/15Purshotam Dass Goel v. Justice B.S. Dhillon
[(1978) 2 SCC 370 :1978 SCC (Cri) 195 : AIR
1978 SC 1014], Union of India v. Mario Cabral e
Sa [(1982) 3 SCC 262 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 10 : AIR
1982 SC 691] , D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal [(1988) 3
SCC 26 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 546] , State of
Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy [(1996) 4
SCC 411 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 675] and J.S. Parihar v.
Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6 SCC 291 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1422]. These cases dealt with orders
refusing to initiate contempt proceedings or
initiating contempt proceedings or
acquitting/exonerating the contemnor or dropping
the proceedings for contempt. In all these cases, it
was held that an appeal was not maintainable
under Section 19 of the CC Act as the said section
only provided for an appeal in respect of orders
punishing for contempt.
10.1. In Baradakanta Mishra [(1975) 3
SCC 535 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 99 : AIR 1974 SC 2255]
a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that an
order declining to initiate a proceeding for
contempt amounts to refusal to assume or exercise
jurisdiction to punish for contempt and, therefore,
such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt. The question as to whether an appeal
would be maintainable under Section 19 where the
court initiates a proceeding for contempt but after
due consideration and hearing finds the alleged
contemnor not guilty of contempt, or having found
him guilty declines to punish him, was left open.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
5/15
10.2. In Purshotam Dass Goel [(1978) 2
SCC 370 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 195 : AIR 1978 SC
1014] certain aspects of Section 19 were left open.
This relevant portion is extracted below: (SCC pp.
371-72, para 3)
“The [contempt] proceeding is initiated
under Section 17 by issuance of a notice.
Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders
passed in the said proceeding by the High Court. It
could not be the intention of the legislature to
provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of
right from each and every such order made by the
High Court. The order or the decision must be such
that it decides some bone of contention raised
before the High Court affecting the right of the
party aggrieved. Mere initiation of a proceeding for
contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima
facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up
the proceeding, does not decide any question. … It
is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an
exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be
appealable to this Court under Section 19. A final
order, surely, will be appealable.
***
If the alleged contemnor in response to
the notice appears before the High Court and asks
it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its being
barred under Section 20 of the Act but the High
Court holds that the proceeding is not barred, it
may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court
under Section 19 from such an order although the
proceeding has remained pending in the High
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
6/15
Court. We are not called upon to express our final
opinion in regard to such an order, but we merely
mention this type of order by way of an example to
show that even orders made at some intermediate
stage in the proceeding may be appealable under
Section 19.”
10.3. While Baradakanta Mishra
[(1975) 3 SCC 535 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 99 : AIR 1974
SC 2255] and Purshotam Dass [(1978) 2 SCC
370 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 195 : AIR 1978 SC 1014] left
open the question whether an appeal under Section
19 would be maintainable in certain areas, in D.N.
Taneja [(1988) 3 SCC 26 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 546] a
three- Judge Bench of this Court categorically
held that appeals under Section 19 would lie only
against the orders punishing the contemnor for
contempt and not any other order passed in
contempt proceedings. We extract below the
relevant portions from the said decision: (SCC pp.
29-32, paras 8, 10 & 12)
“The right of appeal will be available
under sub-section (1) of Section 19 only against
any decision or order of a High Court passed in the
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
… When the High Court does not impose any
punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High
Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to
punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High
Court is to punish. When no punishment is imposed
by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High
Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as
conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
7/15
***
It is true that in considering a question
whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt
or not, the court hears the parties and considers the
materials produced before it and, if necessary,
examines witnesses and, thereafter, passes an order
either acquitting or punishing him for contempt.
When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the
High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for
contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High
Court should act in a particular manner, that is to
say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So long
as no punishment is imposed by the High Court, the
High Court cannot be said to be exercising its
jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under
Article 215 of the Constitution.
***
The aggrieved party under Section 19(1)
can only be the contemnor who has been punished
for contempt of court.” (emphasis supplied)
10.4. In Mahboob S. Allibhoy [(1996) 4
SCC 411 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 675] this Court
reiterated the above position thus: (SCC p. 414,
para 3)
“On a plain reading, Section 19
provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from
any order or decision of the High Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other
words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise
of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt
of court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable
under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
8/15
sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an
appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an
impression is created that an appeal has been
provided under the said sub-section against any
order passed by the High Court while exercising
the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The words
‘any order’ have to be read with the expression
‘decision’ used in the said sub-section which the
High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt. ‘Any order’ is not independent
of the expression ‘decision’. They have been put in
an alternative form saying ‘order’ or ‘decision’. In
either case, it must be in the nature of punishment
for contempt. If the expression ‘any order’ is read
independently of the ‘decision’ then an appeal shall
lie under sub-section (1) of Section 19 even against
any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for
contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a
ridiculous result.”
10.5. J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar
[(1996) 6 SCC 291 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1422] is
nearest to this case, on facts. A contempt petition
was filed alleging that the seniority list drawn
pursuant to the order of the High Court was not in
conformity with the said order. The High Court
found it to be so, but held that the disobedience was
not wilful and, therefore, did not punish for
contempt. But the High Court gave a direction to
redraw the seniority list. The State Government
challenged the said direction in an intra-court
appeal. The Division Bench held that the appeal
was not maintainable under Section 19 of the CC
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
9/15
Act, but was maintainable as an intra-court appeal
as the direction issued by the Single Judge would
be a “judgment” within the meaning of that
expression in Section 18 of the Rajasthan High
Court Ordinance. Accordingly, the Division Bench
set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge
to redo the list. The said order was challenged
before this Court. This Court confirmed the
decision of the Division Bench and held as follows:
(SCC pp. 293-94, paras 5 & 6)
“Therefore, an appeal would lie under
Section 19 when an order in exercise of the
jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the
contemnor has been passed. In this case, the
finding was that the respondents had not wilfully
disobeyed the order. So, there is no order punishing
the respondent for violation of the orders of the
High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under Section
19 would not lie.
***
The question is whether seniority list is
open to review in the contempt proceedings to find
out whether it is in conformity with the directions
issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once
there is an order passed by the Government on the
basis of the directions issued by the court, there
arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority
list may be wrong or may be right or may or may
not be in conformity with the directions. But that
would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved
party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
10/15
But that cannot be considered to be the wilful
violation of the order. After re- exercising the
judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh
direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be
given to redraw the seniority list. In other words,
the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to
consider the matter on merits in the contempt
proceedings. It would not be permissible….”
11. The position emerging from these
decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in
contempt proceedings may be summarised 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 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
11/15made 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 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.”
5. The learned Advocate General further placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju & Anr., [(2004) 13
SCC 610], wherein it has been held as follows:
“8. The learned counsel for the
employees in some of the appeals, submit that
the Division Bench has held that no appeal
would lie against the order of the Contempt
Judge since no one was punished for contempt.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
12/15We find the argument to be fallacious. If a
direction is given by a court without
jurisdiction, against such orders an appeal
would lie to a court normally exercising the
appellate jurisdiction.”
6. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of a
Three-Judge Bench of this Court dated 02.09.2019 passed in
M.J.C. No. 3659 of 2019, arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous
No. 4117 of 2018, in In Re: Suo Motu Cognisance by a Special
Bench of 11 Judges arising out of the order dated 28.08.2019
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4117 of 2018 by a
learned Single Judge v. The Union of India & Ors., wherein it
has been held as follows:
“5. We are of the considered opinion,
as expressed in the order passed by the 11
Judges’ Bench, the powers conferred under the
Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules
amply authorizes in law the hearing of this
matter to correct an error arising out of an
order that suffered from not only patent lack of
authority but also patent lack of jurisdiction.
We are further now justified and fortified in
proceeding with the matter upon the filing of an
appeal by one of the directly affected parties in
the case in which the learned Single Judge has
issued the sweeping directions.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
13/15
7. The learned Advocate General also placed reliance
upon a decision of this Court dated 29.08.2019 passed in M.J.C.
No. 3659 of 2019, arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous No.
4117 of 2018, in In Re: Suo Motu Cognisance by a Special
Bench of 11 Judges arising out of the order dated 28.08.2019
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4117 of 2018 by a
learned Single Judge v. The Union of India, wherein it has
been observed as follows:
“The atmosphere of the Court is
engulfed in a pall of gloom as if this bench is
dictating its own reference, but then that is a
compulsion, as extraordinary situations require
extraordinary remedies. We, therefore, prima
facie, find this case both of a miscellaneous
nature which deserves to be entertained in the
exercise of special extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court that is traceable to Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules
whereunder an order without jurisdiction and
which is completely coram non judice as in the
present case could be appealed against as it
entails serious civil and evil consequences. We,
therefore, direct the office to register this case
as a Miscellaneous M.J.C. before the Special
Bench of 11 Judges.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
14/15
8. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General
that, since no final order of punishment has been passed in the
present case, an appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. Referring to Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, it has been
submitted that the said provision clearly stipulates that a Letters
Patent Appeal would not be maintainable, inter alia, against an
order passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal
jurisdiction. However, in the present case, the impugned order
has been passed in a contempt proceeding, i.e., an M.J.C. arising
out of a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case. It has further been
submitted that, on a plain reading of the impugned order, the
same does not appear to fall within the ambit of either civil
contempt or criminal contempt, as defined under sections 2(b)
and 2(c) of the Act of 1971.
9. It has been argued that the initiation of the
contempt proceedings by the learned Single Judge is wholly
without basis and jurisdiction, and therefore, the same is liable
to be set aside.
10. Issue notice to Respondent 1st set as well as
Respondent Nos. 7, 8, and 9 on the question of admission,
indicating therein that the matter shall be disposed of at the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.277 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
15/15
stage of admission itself, under both processes, i.e., ordinary as
well as registered post with A.D., for which necessary requisites
shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today.
11. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned AAG-13,
enters appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 to 6 (second
set).
12. Let the matter be listed on 04.05.2026.
13. The question of maintainability, as well as the
propriety of the impugned order, will be considered on the said
date.
Re.: I.A. No. 1 of 2026
14. Having considered the submissions advanced, and
on perusal of the materials available on record, Interlocutory
Application No.1 of 2026 stands allowed.
15. The operation of the order dated 18.03.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No. 3000 of 2025
shall remain stayed till the disposal of the present case.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U