Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. This matter has been listed to consider the questionof maintainability. The appeal had been filed by one K.K. Ramesh, party-in-person. Since a question of law was involved relating to maintainability of such appeal, Mr. M.S. Suresh Kumar, advocate, was engaged as amicus curiae. 2. We have heard Mr. M.S. Suresh Kumar, advocate, appointed as amicus curiae. 3. Theparty-in-person had filed Contempt Petition No. 167 of 2005. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that no contempt had been committed and accordingly the proceeding was closed.The party-in-person has purported to file an appeal against such order under Section 19(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Since there has been no order of conviction or punishment, the office has raised a doubt as to whether the appeal would be maintainable. Section 19 of the Act is to the following effect. “19. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdictionto punish for contempt- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order of decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court; Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that- (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against. 4. (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against. 4. It seems, a similar questionhas been directly answered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 26 wherein it has been observed as follows: “8. The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of Section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In thisconnection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. In otherwords, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. As has been noticed earlier, an appeal will lie under Section 19(1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and,in our opinion rightly, that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution. 9.………. 10. There can be no doubt that whenever a Court, Tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter, such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or against a person. 9.………. 10. There can be no doubt that whenever a Court, Tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter, such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or against a person. For example, a CivilCourt is conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a suit; the Civil Court will have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same. But when a Court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in a particular manner, the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other. Article 215 confers jurisdiction or power on the High Court to punish for contempt. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for contempt. It is true that inconsidering a question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or not, the Court hears the parties and considers the materials produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and, thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him forcontempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High Court does not exercise itsjurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular manner, that is to say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is imposed by the High Court, the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution. 11. It does not, however, mean that when the High Court erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of the Court will be without any remedy. Even though no appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act, the petitioner in such a case can move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention, as advanced on behalf of the appellant, that there would be no remedy against the erroneous or perverse decision of theHigh Court in not exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, is not correct. But, in such a case there would be no right of appeal under Section 19(1), as there is no exercise of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for contempt. But, in such a case there would be no right of appeal under Section 19(1), as there is no exercise of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for contempt. The view which we take finds support from a decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra (1975) 3 SCC 535 . 12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute andthe question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. In this connection, it may be noticed that there was no right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. It is for the first time that under Section 19(1) of the Act, a right of appeal has been provided for. A contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the Court for contempt only brings to the notice of the Court certain facts constituting contemptof Court. After furnishing such information he may still assist the Court, but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the Court and the contemnor. It may be one of the reasons which weighed with the Legislature in not conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt. The aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt of Court.” 5. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is held that the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable. 6. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. M.S. Suresh Kumar, advocate, appointed as amicus curiae.