H. K. Sema, C. J. (Acting) — We have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the appellants well as Mr. JM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. In this writ appeal the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 125 of 2001. By the impugned order a notice has been issued upon the respondents to show cause as to why a contempt proceeding should not be initiated against them under section 2, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule 9 of the Gauhati High Court (Contempt) Rules, 1977. The notice was made returnable within 3 weeks. The contempt notice was issued to the respondents for the alleged non-compliance of the Court order dated 10.1.2001 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2001. While issuing the notice as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has also passed the following order : "By invoking the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution, I made he following order. The respondents namely, (1) A. Ahmed, the Registrar, Co-operative, Assam, Guwahati 1 and (2) JM Choudhury, the Zonal Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Silchar, District Cachar, Assam are directed to comply and implement the related Courts order dated 10.1.2001 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2001 within 48 hours from now i.e. 11.45 AM failing which a fresh contempt of Court proceeding shall be initiated against them suo motu without any further reference." 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents passed orders dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure 8) and another order dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure 9). Reading of the aforesaid two orders will clearly show that these orders has been passed in compliance of the order dated 5.4.2001 passed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. JM Choudhury, at the outset submits that the writ appeal is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2001 is not appealed against by the writ appellant, According to Mr. Choudhury, since the order dated 10.1.2001 had attained finality, the appellant cannot raise the question of legality or validity of the subsequent order dated 5.4.2001 passed in consequence of the order dated 10.1.2001 and file writ appeal, which is not maintainable. Choudhury, since the order dated 10.1.2001 had attained finality, the appellant cannot raise the question of legality or validity of the subsequent order dated 5.4.2001 passed in consequence of the order dated 10.1.2001 and file writ appeal, which is not maintainable. We are not impressed by this submission because we have already pointed out that the order dated 5.4.2001 is not an order passed in contempt petition simpliciter. While issuing a notice in contempt J petition, the learned Single Judge also invoked the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution and issued a direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to carry out the earlier order passed by the Court on 1.1.2001. By issuing such direction, the learned Single Judge converted the contempt petition into one under writ jurisdiction. In our considered view, therefore, the appellant is entitled to file appeal. The order passed under Article 215 if otherwise taken in its entirety, has adversely affected the appellant. We also noticed that pursuant to the direction, the orders dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure VIII) and 11.4.2001 (Annexure IX) have been passed having civil consequences and affecting the appellant. It is admitted that either in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2001 which was disposed on 10.1.2001 or in pending contempt petition, the appellant has not been arrayed as party respondent. By now it is well settled principle of law that if any order adversely affecting the parties is passed, they are at liberty to file appeal against that order even they are not a party to the proceeding. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, we dispose of this appeal at this stage by allowing it and set aside the operative portion of the order dated 5.4.2001 as quoted above. Consequently the orders dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure VIII) and 11.4.2001 (Annexure IX) are also set aside. Appeal is allowed. 6. It is open to the appellant to file writ appeal against the order dated 10.1.2001, if so advised, on the basis of which the contempt proceeding has been initiated. Since the contempt petition is pending before the learned Single Judge, the same shall be pursued by the parties and the learned Single Judge may pass any appropriate order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs.