Contempt jurisdiction and roster allocation: notice order set aside as without jurisdiction, with appeal held maintainable.

A special appeal was held maintainable against a notice order in contempt proceedings because the impugned order raised a jurisdictional controversy affecting rights and carried sufficient finality. The Court also held that a single Judge could not entertain a contempt application or issue notice unless contempt matters had been assigned to that Judge under the roster fixed by the Chief Justice. Although contempt power belongs to the High Court as a court of record, its exercise remains subject to constitutional allocation of work. The impugned order was therefore set aside as without jurisdiction, while the question whether contempt had actually been committed was left to the Judge having roster for contempt matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the special appeal was maintainable against the order directing notice in contempt proceedings. (ii) Whether a single Judge, without assignment of contempt matters by the Chief Justice, could entertain the contempt application and issue notice.

Issue (i): Whether the special appeal was maintainable against the order directing notice in contempt proceedings.

Analysis: An order is appealable if it determines a jurisdictional controversy affecting valuable rights and bearing the trappings of finality. An order passed without jurisdiction, and one that directly affects a party's rights by assuming competence to deal with a matter not allotted to the Judge, falls within that class.

Conclusion: The special appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a single Judge, without assignment of contempt matters by the Chief Justice, could entertain the contempt application and issue notice.

Analysis: The power under Article 215 belongs to the High Court as a court of record, but its exercise is regulated by the constitutional scheme and the rules of roster and allocation of work. The Chief Justice has the authority to constitute Benches and assign judicial business, and a Judge can act only within that assignment. Where contempt matters are allotted to another Judge and the impugned Judge lacks such determination, the order is beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The single Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the contempt application and issue notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and was set aside, while the question whether contempt had in fact been committed was left for determination by the Judge having roster to hear contempt matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court Judge can exercise contempt jurisdiction only when the matter is placed before him under the roster and allocation made by the Chief Justice; an order passed outside such assignment is without jurisdiction and void.

---