TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preferred by the appellant to be not maintainable. The issue raised in this appeal is whether a writ application is maintainable against an order of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against an authority arrayed as respondent no.5 before the Tribunal. Such pristine question of law does not require any reference to the facts which led the appellant to file O.A.No.2744 of 2007 corresponding to M.A.No.24 of 2008 before the Tribunal with a prayer to initiate proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Manju Banerjee (supra) and has submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, shall have effect, subject to the modifications that - the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as a reference to the Tribunal, and the reference therein to the Advocate-General in Section 15 of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to the Advocate-General of the State." There is no caveat to the proposition of law that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 an appeal lies before the Supreme Court only against such order of the High Court which imposes punishment for contempt and no appeal will lie against an interlocutory order or an order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. This was clearly laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mah....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, therefore, High Court cannot exercise power of judicial review when the Tribunal exercises same powers as that of the High Court to reject or drop a contempt petition. On a careful consideration of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Manju Banerjee (supra) which has been followed in the impugned order, we are unable to agree with the view that writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to initiate a contempt proceeding. Such inference has been drawn by the Division Bench on the basis of some judgments of this Court such as in the case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 26. In those cases the o....