Contempt pleas after an appellate modification must be heard by the Division Bench, not the original Single Judge, Calcutta HC rules

The respondents filed WPA No. 9990 of 2020 challenging the modified Clause 27.2 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014, as incorporated in the 2019 Manual, and related Office Memoranda.

The Single Judge, by order dated 11 April 2023, quashed the modified clause and directed CPWD to implement certain Ministry of Steel notifications and directions.

On 15 April 2024, the Division Bench modified the Single Judge’s direction by directing CPWD to amend its Works Manual consistently with the Ministry of Steel notifications, instead of quashing Clause 27.2, with implementation within twelve weeks.

Meanwhile, the respondents had filed CPAN No. 1154 of 2023 alleging contempt of the Single Judge’s order.

Although the appellant filed an affidavit of compliance contending that the contempt application had become infructuous, the Single Judge, on 4 October 2024, issued a contempt rule and recorded that the appellant had wilfully and deliberately violated the order.

Rule 15 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 provides that civil contempt proceedings must be heard by the Judge or Judges who passed the relevant judgment, decree, direction, order or process.

Under the doctrine of merger, where an appellate court modifies or reverses an order, the appellate order becomes the operative and enforceable order, and the original order merges into it; however, the doctrine is applied having regard to the nature of the superior court’s jurisdiction and the subject matter of the appeal, as stated in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala.

The Special Bench decision in Sailesh Kumar v. Smitha R., IAS held that where a Single Judge’s order is modified or reversed by a Division Bench under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, contempt lies before the Division Bench that passed the appellate order.

Contempt jurisdiction is confined to determining deliberate and wilful disobedience of the operative order and cannot be used to reconsider or enlarge the original decision, as held in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly.

Although Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ordinarily limits appeals to orders imposing punishment for contempt, an order passed without jurisdiction is appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; a decree or order made without jurisdiction is a nullity under Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju.

The Division Bench held that its order dated 15 April 2024 did not merely affirm the Single Judge’s order; it materially modified the direction by substituting the requirement to amend Clause 27.2 for the direction quashing it.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s order no longer subsisted independently, having merged into the appellate order.

Under Rule 15 and the binding Special Bench ruling in Sailesh Kumar, any contempt concerning the modified operative directions could be entertained only by the Division Bench that passed the appellate order.

The subject matter of contempt was therefore the operative appellate order, not the superseded Single Judge’s order.

The Single Judge consequently lacked inherent subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed with CPAN No. 1154 of 2023.

This was not a mere procedural irregularity capable of waiver by the appellant’s participation; the resulting order was a nullity.

Further, the Single Judge had effectively found the appellant guilty of wilful contempt, making the order one that affected substantial rights and qualified as a “judgment” appealable under Clause 15, notwithstanding the absence of a formally imposed punishment.

Since the Single Judge’s original order had been modified and merged into the Division Bench’s appellate order, the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the contempt application.

The impugned order issuing the contempt rule, together with all consequential steps, was set aside.

MAT 2003 of 2024 was allowed, CAN 1 of 2024 was disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.