Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1295 (PAT)

Abhay Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-07

J.N.BHATT, MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated, 27.6.2006 in a contempt matter, being M.J.C. No. 1166 of 2004, whereby, the contempt petition came to be disposed of with the following direction in the penultimate paragraph of the order: "In my opinion, direction of this Court has already been carried out. The petitioner, however, if so advised, may challenge the decision taken by the authorities as contained in Annexures A and C to the show cause by way of separate writ application." 2. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent reads here as under: "Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the Judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Sec. 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court. Pursuant to Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after the first day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the sail) High Court or of such Division Courlj shall be to us, Our Heirs or Successors in Our or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided." 3. After considering the facts and circumstances and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, coupled with the underlying design and object of the provision of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, we are of the opinion that this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order. The view which we are inclined to take is reinforced by a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lai: (1988)3 S.C.C. 26 . 4. Therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed at the dmi sion stage.