Contempt proceedings against interim orders are not maintainable after final disposal of the main writ petition.

The appellant challenged an order dated 26.04.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in a contempt application (M.J.C. No. 872 of 2023).

The contempt application had been filed on 24.03.2023 alleging non-compliance with an interim order passed during the pendency of a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 224 of 2022).

Notably, the underlying writ petition had already been finally disposed of on 03.01.2023 with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Patna Sadar, to dispose of proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. within two months.

Despite the final disposal of the writ, the Single Judge entertained the contempt petition and passed the impugned order directing the SDM to take "corrective steps" regarding a "bala-bala" (unilateral) order passed by the Magistrate.

1. Whether a contempt application is maintainable against an interim order after the main writ petition has been finally disposed of?

2. Whether the learned Single Judge had the authority to pass the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 in a contempt proceeding after the final disposal of the original writ?

The court applied the fundamental principle of merger in civil and writ jurisdiction, which dictates that upon the final disposal of a primary proceeding (such as a writ petition), all interlocutory or interim orders passed during its pendency merge into the final order.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the principle of judicial propriety regarding the language used in judicial orders, noting that informal or derogatory slang (such as "bala-bala") is unwarranted.

The Court reasoned that once the writ petition was disposed of on 03.01.2023, the interim orders ceased to have an independent existence as they merged with the final judgment.

Consequently, a contempt application filed on 24.03.2023—months after the case was closed—targeting a defunct interim order was legally unsustainable.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the SDM had already complied with the final writ directions by disposing of the Section 147 Cr.P.C. proceedings on 26.06.2023, and the appellant had even successfully challenged that decision in revision.

The Court found that the Single Judge exceeded his authority by entertaining the contempt petition and criticized the use of the term "bala-bala" as inappropriate for a judicial record.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 was set aside. The Court further directed the SDM to dispose of a pending application under Section 166 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) within two months from the date of communication, based on evidence filed via affidavits.