Sharmathali K.P. and others v. P.S. Pramoj Sanker

**==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29564 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` WA NO.621 OF 2025 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2025 IN Con.Case(C) NO.119 ``` ``` OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 SHARMATHALI.K.P., AGED 56 YEARS, ARPAN HOUSE, KOTTOLI PARAMBA, MORIKKARA POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 670361.`** - **`2 SURESH BABU.T., AGED 56 YEARS, ARJUN NIVAS, KALIPARAMBIL, CHERUVATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 671312.`** - **`3 JIJIMON, AGED 56 YEARS, KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, ACHOORNAM, ATHIMOOLA, POZHUTHANA POST OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673575.`** - **`4 MUHAMMED.K, AGED 56 YEARS, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAYAMBRA POST OFFICE, KUNNAMANGLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673571.`** - **`5 BHASKARAN.K, AGED 56 YEARS, KIZH.AKKAYIL HOUSE, KLZHAKKOTH POST OFFICE, KODUVALLY (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673572.`** - **`6 SHAJI PHILIP, AGED 56 YEARS, THANDANKULAM HOUSE, PUNNAKKAL POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 670603.`** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29564 ``` ## **`BY ADV C.V.MILTON`** ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` P.S.PRAMOJ SANKER, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER) MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695023. -IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/11/2024 IN IA 01/24 IN COC 119/2024, PIN – 695023. ``` ## **`BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN`** ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29564 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The appellant has filed this writ appeal as an intra-court appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No.119 of 2024, which arises out of the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.24403 of 2023. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of that judgment dated 15.01.2025 in Contempt Case (C) No.119 of 2024 read thus: “2. As per the judgment, the respondents were directed to disburse Provident Fund closure due to the petitioners, with statutory interest until the date of payment, and the Staff Welfare Fund to the petitioner within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 3. An affidavit dated 16.12.2024 has been filed by the respondent, detailing the amounts paid along with the interest. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the calculation is not strictly in tune with the directions issued by this Court. However, despite grant of time, the said assertion has not been substantiated. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that there has been substantial compliance with the directions in **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`WA NO. 621 OF 2025 4`** `2025:KER:29564` the judgment. This Contempt Case is closed.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC for the respondent. 3. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with appeal. As per sub-section (1) of Section 19, 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. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19, where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. As per sub-section (2) of Section 19, pending any appeal, the appellate court may order that (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. As per sub-section (3) of Section 19, where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29564 ``` intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). As per subsection (4) of Section 19, an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against. 4. In **Midnapore Peoples’ Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399]** , after referring to the law laid down in **Baradakanta Mishra [(1975) 3 SCC 535]** , **Purshotam Dass Goel [(1978) 2 SCC 370]** , **State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy [(1996) 4 SCC 411]** and **J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6 SCC 291]** the Apex Court summarised the legal position emerging from those decisions in regard to appeals filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act against orders in contempt proceedings. Paragraph 11 of that decision reads thus; - “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, **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`WA NO. 621 OF 2025`** - **`6`** `2025:KER:29564` - 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 Contempt of Courts 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 Contempt of Courts 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 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:29564 ``` 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).” (underline supplied) 5. In **Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granites [2025 (1) KLT** **287]** a Full Bench of this Court considered the issue of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act and it was held that for an appeal to lie under Section 19(1), the impugned order must be inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt and cannot be independent of it. It must flow from the order punishing for contempt. All procedural steps leading to the order of punishment cannot be termed as incidental to the order punishing for contempt. For the second part of clause (IV) in **Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399]** to apply, there must be first an order punishing for contempt. This position of law is expounded also by earlier decisions on the subject by the Apex Court referred to earlier. An order proceeding to frame and framing charges being merely a stage prior to the order of punishment cannot be considered as **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:29564 ``` inextricably connected to or incidental to the order punishing for contempt. The order inextricably connected to such orders can be direction to purge the contempt, which also can be challenged under Section 19(1) along with the order punishing for contempt. It also has to be kept in mind that the judge decides whether contempt of the "court" is committed. The contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor and are not a lis between the parties. When the court declares that contempt is committed and passes an order in its contempt jurisdiction, an appeal will lie. The contempt proceedings are not complete or final until the punishment is rendered. The proceedings are concluded only after the Court renders a final decision, which includes determining a sentence upon finding the party guilty of contempt. If any positive direction is given that is incidental to and connected with the order of punishing for contempt, then under an appeal filed under Section 19 can be filed challenging both the order of punishing for contempt and the order that is incidental to it. When any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intracourt appeal (wherever such a provision exists) would be **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:29564 ``` maintainable. Hence, the scheme of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Rules framed thereunder, and the decisions of the Apex Court, particularly in the case of **Midnapore** **Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd.** , indicate that only those orders which are inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment can be the subject matter of an appeal along with the order imposing punishment. To reiterate the phrase inextricably connected or incidental "to the order imposing punishment" mean that there must first be an order of punishment. Proceeding to framing charges for contempt is thus not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act. ## 6. In **Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287]** the Full Bench answered the reference as under; “An appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, challenging the order when the Court, after forming a prima facie opinion, proceeds to frame a charge under Rule 14(b) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable.” 7. In **Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt. Gen) v. Bijukumar S.** **[2025 (2) KHC 384]** , a Division Bench of this Court in which both of us were parties held that in view of the law laid down by the **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:29564 ``` Full Bench in **Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287]** , the appellant cannot invoke the provision under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, in order to challenge the impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 in Cont.Case (C)No. 2459 of 2019 and order dated 15.07.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Cont.Case (C)No.2459 of 2019 of the learned Single Judge, as those orders would not fall under the category of orders which are inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment. Then the question that requires consideration is as to whether those orders would fall under the category of orders in clause (V) of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Midnapore Peoples’ Co.op.Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399]** , for maintaining an intra-court appeal from the orders of a learned Single Judge, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and followed by the Full Bench in **Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287]** when an issue is decided or direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. Such an intracourt appeal has to be filed as a writ appeal, which has to be listed **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:29564 ``` before the Division Bench as per the roster, and not before the Division Bench dealing with contempt appeals. 8. In **Sukhdeep Sangwan (Lt. Gen) [2025 (2) KHC 384]** , on the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench found that the Contempt Appeal filed by the appellants-respondents challenging the impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 in Cont.Case (C)No.2459 of 2019 and order dated 15.07.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Cont.Case (C)No.2459 of 2019 of the learned Single Judge can only be dismissed as not maintainable; however, without prejudice to the right of the appellants to challenge those orders of the learned Single Judge in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, in case those orders fall under the category of appealable orders, i.e., orders in which any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings. 9. In the instant case, by the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2025, the learned Single Judge closed Contempt Case (C) No.119 of 2024 on a finding that there has been substantial compliance with the direction contained in the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.24403 of 2023. Such an order cannot be **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WA NO. 621 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:29564 ``` challenged in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. In the result, this writ appeal fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed, without expressing anything on the factual issues raised by the appellant. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE** DSV/-