Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 08 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant – Rajesh Kumar Kaushal; Respondents – SRMB SRIJAN PRIVATE LIMITED and another.
- Proceedings: The appellant challenged a contempt rule dated 04 Oct 2024 (CPAN No. 1154 of 2023) issued by a Single Judge for alleged wilful disobedience of an order dated 11 Apr 2023 in WPA No. 9990 of 2020.
- Background: The 11 Apr 2023 order quashed Clause 27.2 of the CPWD Works Manual (2014) as incorporated in the 2019 Manual and directed CPWD to implement Ministry of Steel notifications dated 12 May 2016, 9 Aug 2016, 14 Dec 2016 and 7 Feb 2017. The Division Bench, in MAT 310 of 2024, modified that order on 15 Apr 2024, directing CPWD to amend the Manual in line with the notifications, without overturning the substantive direction.
- Contempt Application: Respondents filed a contempt application (CPAN No. 1154 of 2023) alleging the appellant’s wilful violation of the 11 Apr 2023 order. The appellant filed an affidavit of compliance, arguing the order had become infructuous after the Division Bench modification.
- Rule Issued: On 04 Oct 2024 the Single Judge issued a rule directing the appellant to show cause why he should not be imprisoned or otherwise penalised for contempt.
- Legal Questions: (i) Whether an appeal against a contempt rule (without penalty) is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. (ii) Whether the contempt application was maintainable after the original order was modified by the Division Bench.
- Submissions: The appellant argued the order was a nullity, the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction, and the doctrine of merger rendered the original order subsumed. The respondents contended the appeal was not maintainable as no penalty had been imposed and the contempt rule was not a judgment.
Analysis & Decision
- The Court first examined maintainability, noting that Section 19 of the Contempt Act applies only to orders imposing punishment; however, the appeal is framed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent because the order is a judgment‑like order.
- Rule 15 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt Rules, 1975 stipulates that contempt petitions must be heard by the judge(s) who passed the order alleged to be violated. Since the Division Bench modified the 11 Apr 2023 order, the original order no longer existed.
- The Court affirmed the doctrine of merger: when a superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms an inferior court’s order, the inferior order merges into the superior order and ceases to subsist.
- Citing Supreme Court authority (Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala) and the Calcutta High Court Special Bench decision, the Court held that the contempt jurisdiction lies with the Division Bench that issued the modifying order, not the Single Judge.
- Consequently, the Single Judge’s contempt rule was issued without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
- As a nullity, the order is not protected by Section 19 of the Contempt Act; the appeal is therefore maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
- The Court set aside the contempt rule, disposed of CPAN No. 1154 of 2023 and CAN 1 of 2024, and awarded no costs.
Final Outcome
- The contempt order dated 04 Oct 2024 is declared a nullity and set aside.
- The appeal (MAT 2003 of 2024) is allowed.
- No costs are awarded.
Topics: Contempt Jurisdiction, Doctrine of Merger, Judicial Appeal