JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Sant Saran Upadhyay, leaned Advocate appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.10.2008, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on Misc. Application No. 254864 of 2008 in Contempt case No. 21 of 2007. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issues raised in the appeal are; a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2007 initiated proceedings of contempt against the appellant who is an Advocate of this Court. Learned Single Judge took cognizance of the contempt and directed the Court Officer to send her to jail and framed charges by the same order. The order mentions that cognizance of the contempt is being taken under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Single Judge further directed that the order passed, be sent before the contempt Bench dealing with the criminal contempt. The appellant filed a contempt appeal No. 25 of 2007 against the order dated 10.12.2007 in which appeal, the Division Bench granted stay of the arrest and further restrained the appellant from appearing in the Court except in her own contempt case. The order recorded the statement of the appellant that she will submit an apology before the learned Single Judge. On 11.12.2007, the appellant filed an application alongwith affidavit before the learned Single Judge. On 11.12.2007, the learned Single Judge disposed of the application for apology taking the view that the criminal contempt proceedings were drawn on 10.12.2007 and the matter having been sent before the Bench dealing with the criminal contempt, her application for apology can be better adjudicated by the Division Bench which is seized of the matter. Learned Single Judge observed that sitting singly, he cannot have jurisdiction to entertain the alleged qualified apology which has to be pleaded before the appropriate Bench. The Division Bench hearing the appeal made a reference to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to hear both the contempt appeal and the contempt petition No. 21 of 2007. An application was filed by the appellant to withdraw the contempt Appeal No. 25 of 2007. By order dated 2.4.2008, Hon’ble the Chief Justice referred the entire matter to a Full Bench of five Hon’ble Judges as requested by Division Bench vide order dated 11.12.2007. An application was filed by the appellant to withdraw the contempt Appeal No. 25 of 2007. By order dated 2.4.2008, Hon’ble the Chief Justice referred the entire matter to a Full Bench of five Hon’ble Judges as requested by Division Bench vide order dated 11.12.2007. Full Bench vide its order dated 22.8.2008 held that contempt appeal No. 25 of 2007 is maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the appellant was given an option to intimate as to whether she wants to press the withdrawal application filed for withdrawal of the appeal. On 22.9.2008, the Full Bench dismissed the Contempt appeal No. 25 of 2007 as withdrawn. The Full Bench again took the matter on 13.10.2008 and adjourned the same noticing the submissions of the appellant that apology of the appellant could still be considered and appropriate order could be passed by learned Single Judge himself on the footing that the case is one under Section 14 and not under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant again filed an application alongwith affidavit before the learned Single Judge praying for considering her apology. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 again took the view that the apology application has to be considered by the Full Bench which is seized of the whole case. Learned Single Judge by order dated 23.10.2008 directed the apology application to be placed before the concerned Full Bench, against which order this contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Act has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contended that this appeal is fully entertainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the order of the Full Bench dated 22.8.2008 referred above to buttress his submissions regarding maintainability of the appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to several paragraphs of the judgment dated 22.8.2008 to demonstrate that in view of the observations made by the Full Bench, the present appeal is fully maintainable under Section 19. Apart from the judgment of the Full Bench, learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Purshotam Dass Goel v. Hon’ble Mr. Apart from the judgment of the Full Bench, learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Purshotam Dass Goel v. Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Dhillon and others, AIR 1978 SC 1014 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.N. Dey and others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others, (2000) 4 S.C.C. 400 . 5. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that although the proceedings which were initiated by learned Single Judge for criminal contempt are the proceedings of ex-facie contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but it mentions taking the cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Criminal contempt since under the roaster fixed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the criminal contempt was cognizable only by a Division Bench. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that ex-facie contempt under Section 14 is to be tried by the same Hon’ble Judge, who had taken cognizance of ex-facie contempt and same learned Single Judge is fully entitled to consider the application for apology. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is due to this reason that Full Bench vide its order dated 13.10.2008 permitted the appellant to file an application of apology before the learned Single Judge again. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that non-consideration of application of apology by learned Single Judge has resulted into hanging of contempt proceedings on the appellant and amounts refusal to exercise the jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, which is liable to be corrected in this contempt appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 7. The first question to be considered is as to whether this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 7. The first question to be considered is as to whether this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable. The order impugned dated 23.10.2008 is an order by which the application filed by the appellant praying for acceptance of apology has not been considered on the ground that apology application has to be considered by the Full Bench which is seized of the matter and there is nothing before the learned Single Judge to be considered and decided. The scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been elaborately considered by the Full Bench in its judgment and order dated 22.8.2008, copy of which has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit which is also reported in 2008 (7) ADJ 336 , Smt. Sadhana Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. In the order dated 22.8.2008, the Full Bench was considering the question as to whether appeal under Section 19 of the Act was maintainable against the order dated 10.12.2007, passed by learned Single Judge taking cognizance of the criminal contempt directing the appellant to be taken into custody and framing charge. The order dated 10.12.2007 was also not an order finally deciding the contempt or convicting or punishing the contemner but was an interlocutory order initiating the criminal contempt proceedings. 8. Before coming to the judgment of the Full Bench and the relevant paragraphs relied by learned Counsel for the appellant, it is useful to refer to two judgments relied by learned Counsel for the appellant. In the case of Purshotam Dass Goel (supra), the Supreme Court was considering maintainability of appeal against an order merely initiating contempt proceedings by issuing notices. An observation was made by the apex Court in the said judgment that even orders at intermediate stage in a contempt proceedings may be appealable under Section 19. Following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 3 : “He submitted that initiation of the proceeding by the High Court will be without jurisdiction if it is in violation of Section 20. It may be so. Following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 3 : “He submitted that initiation of the proceeding by the High Court will be without jurisdiction if it is in violation of Section 20. It may be so. If the alleged contemner in response to the notice appears before the High Court and asks it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its being barred under Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceeding is not barred. It may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court under Section 19 from such an order although the proceeding has remained pending in the High Court. We are not called upon to express our final opinion in regard to such an order, but we merely mention this type of order by way of an example to show that even orders made at some intermediate stage in the proceeding may be appellable under Section 19…..” 9. In R.N. Dey (supra), which was again a case where after initiation of proceedings in contempt, Court passes an order without discharging the rule. The Apex Court held that appeal is maintainable against such order. Following observation was made in paragraph 10 : “In our view the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondents requires to be rejection the ground that after receipt of the notice, officers concerned tendered unconditional apology and after accepting the same, the High Court rejected the prayer for discharge of the rule issued for contempt action. When the Court either suo motu or on a motion or a reference, decides to take action and initiate proceedings for contempt, it assumes jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding for contempt and if the order is passed not discharging the rule issued in contempt proceedings, it would be an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Against such order, appeal would be maintainable.” 10. The Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 in the case of appellant herself had noticed the submission of the appellant with regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 against the order dated 10.12.2007. Against such order, appeal would be maintainable.” 10. The Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 in the case of appellant herself had noticed the submission of the appellant with regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 against the order dated 10.12.2007. The Full Bench apart from other aspects of the matter also noted the submission that very initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 15 was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge since the order refers to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Full Bench noticed that the jurisdiction to proceed with contempt framing charge and directing for taking into custody was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge since the reference of Section 15 alone was made which jurisdiction vests in Division Bench. The observations made by Full Bench in its judgment dated 22.8.2008 also lends support to the submission of the appellant that the appellant can maintain this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The following part of the judgment as reported in 2008 (7) ADJ 336 are relevant paragraphs 29, 35, 43, 55, 59 : “29. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced and we find that the determination on the question of maintainability would be dependant upon the nature of the order which has been passed. In the instant case, the appellant has been charged with ex-facie contempt and was sent to jail forthwith. The charges were framed after taking cognizance which according to the appellant was without jurisdiction. Whether the proceedings taking cognizance initiated by the learned single Judge were within his jurisdiction or not is a question which goes to the root of the matter. It is trite law that if the proceedings initiated are without jurisdiction then they effect the substantive rights of a person inasmuch as the Court in such an event would not be competent to proceed with the matter. The question of jurisdiction is of vital importance and would be dependent upon the nature of the power exercised on the facts of a particular case. The question of jurisdiction is of vital importance and would be dependent upon the nature of the power exercised on the facts of a particular case. In instant matter, the appellant contends that the proceedings have been consciously initiated by the learned single Judge under Section 15 and if that is found to be correct, then the single Judge, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, could not have either taken cognizance or framed charges or even have ordered the custody of the appellant. To our mind, this question, therefore, is of vital importance as it affects the substantive rights of the appellant and hence in our opinion can be corrected in an Appeal. We are also of the opinion that if there is a procedural violation of a mandatory provision even then the same could vitally affect the rights of a contemner which can also be subject matter of Appeal. 35. The words “any order” has to be read with the expression “decision” used in the sub-section, which power is exercised to punish for contempt. Can it be said that the words “any order” or “decision” are independent of each other. The words, as used in the Section, appear to be “any order or decision” which can be said to have been used in the alternative. Nonetheless, whether the nature of the order presently under question would still not be an interlocutory order and would be appellable. 43. The question relating to the applicability of Section 14 or 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act has to be deliberated upon for the purposes of deciding the jurisdiction of the Court. It is a vital issue and can, therefore, have a direct bearing or the rights of a contemner which can be subject matter of an appeal. The decision to take cognizance or to initiate a proceeding which is questioned on the ground of jurisdiction, procedural violation and violation of fundamental rights, is a question of moment and, therefore, can be said to be appellable under Section 19 of the Act. The aforesaid issues are inextricably mixed up with the authority and competence of the Court to proceed to decide the contempt and hence the same would be an order in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 55. The aforesaid issues are inextricably mixed up with the authority and competence of the Court to proceed to decide the contempt and hence the same would be an order in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 55. It would, thus, be seen that the issues raised with regard to maintainability of the appeal in the present case, in our opinion are spread over in an unchartered and unexplored area. The decisions cited at the Bar on behalf of the appellant, in our opinion, do not cover the said field and, therefore, having traversed the same, we find this appeal to be maintainable for considering the issues advanced before us. 59. Judging from that point of view in the instant case, the learned Single Judge, according to the appellant herself has proceeded to assume jurisdiction which he otherwise did not possess in case the proceedings are taken to have been initiated under Section 15 of the Act. The aforesaid issue, therefore, in our opinion, if decided in favour of the appellant, would make the entire proceedings coram non-judice and in view of the example given by the apex Court in the decision referred to herein above, an appeal would be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act. It is trite law that every Court also has the power to determine its own jurisdiction. In the instant case, the High Court being a superior Court of record exercising powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction and such a question if raised, can be adjudicated in appeal.” 11. The aforesaid observations have been made by Full Bench of this Court, while considering the submissions of the appellant herself with regard to criminal contempt proceedings cognizance of which was taken by learned Single Judge by its order dated 10.12.2007. The Full Bench vide subsequent order dated 13.10.2008 has adjourned the case to enable the appellant to avail opportunity of filing fresh apology application before the learned Single Judge in the same contempt proceedings. Many of the reasons given by Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 for holding the appeal maintainable under Section 19 against the order dated 10.12.2007 are also attracted, while considering the maintainability of the appeal against the subsequent order dated 23.10.2008, passed by learned Single Judge who took cognizance of the criminal contempt. Many of the reasons given by Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 for holding the appeal maintainable under Section 19 against the order dated 10.12.2007 are also attracted, while considering the maintainability of the appeal against the subsequent order dated 23.10.2008, passed by learned Single Judge who took cognizance of the criminal contempt. We sitting in Division Bench feel bound by the observations made by the Full Bench, while taking the view that contempt appeal under Section 19 was maintainable. The submission reiterated before us by learned Counsel for the appellant is that learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and could have proceeded under Section 14 for ex-facie contempt under which learned Single Judge alone had jurisdiction to proceed with the ex-facie contempt and consider the apology application of the appellant. 12. From what has been observed by the Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 and the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that this appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the first question is decided in affirmative holding that this appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 13. Now comes the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in the contempt proceedings which are ex-facie contempt under Section 14 of the Act. The submission is that the jurisdiction to consider the apology application is only with the learned Single Judge, who is entitled to proceed under Section 14 of the Act. It is submitted that the cognizance under Section 15 of the Act is to be taken by Division Bench alone according to the roaster fixed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the relevant date and learned Single Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which refusal to exercise the jurisdiction resulted in contempt proceedings hanging on the appellant. Appellate Court may interfere with the order and itself consider the apology application submitted by the appellant. 14. Appellate Court may interfere with the order and itself consider the apology application submitted by the appellant. 14. As noticed above, the Division Bench which was hearing the contempt appeal against the order dated 10.12.2007 vide its order dated 11.12.2007 made a reference to Hon’ble the Chief Justice by the following order : “We are, therefore, of the opinion that this contempt appeal and contempt petition No. 21 of 2007 be heard together by a larger Bench of not less than five Hon’ble Judges. Let the records be laid before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.” 15. Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provide for a reference to a larger Bench which is as follows : “6. Reference to a larger Bench.—The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein.” 16. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide his order dated 2.4.2008 made reference to larger Bench. The referring order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice is quoted herein below : “As suggested by the Division Bench by the order dated 11.12.2007, I hereby constitute the Bench of following Hon’ble Judges to decide the maters : (1) Hon’ble Sushil Harkauli, J. (2) Hon’ble R.K. Agarwal, J. (3) Hon’ble Janardan Sahai, J. (4) Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J. (5) Hon’ble S.K. Jain, J.” 17. Learned Single Judge took cognizance of criminal contempt on 10.12.2007, which case has been numbered as 21 of 2007. By order dated 2.4.2008, the said criminal contempt Case No. 21 of 2007 has been referred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to the Full Bench of five Hon’ble Judges, which is seized of the matter. The question as to whether the learned Single Judge on 10.12.2007 had jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass orders for taking into custody and to frame charge, is under consideration before the Full Bench. The question as to whether the learned Single Judge on 10.12.2007 had jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass orders for taking into custody and to frame charge, is under consideration before the Full Bench. The Full Bench in its order dated 22.8.2008 in several paragraphs have noticed the submission that proceedings before the learned Single Judge was without jurisdiction. The issue that the contempt proceedings can be treated under Section 14 of the Act for which jurisdiction is in the learned Single Judge has been noticed by the Full Bench. Full Bench in its order dated 13.10.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the appeal had made following observations : “We have considered the aforesaid submission and from the order dated 11.12.2007 we find that the apology appears to have been prima facie not entertained on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not enjoy the jurisdiction of entertaining the said apology. In our order dated 22.8.2008 passed in contempt appeal No. 25 of 2007 detailed facts have been taken into account and we had expressed a prima facie doubt about the applicability of Section 15 in this matter which appears to be one of ex-facie contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows…..” 18. It is to be noticed that in the order dated 13.10.2008, the Full Bench on submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that in the event the matter is treated to be one of ex-facie contempt as defined under Section 14 of the Act, the apology can still be considered and appropriate orders may be passed by learned Single Judge himself has adjourned the case. It is useful to quote the observation of the Full Bench dated 13.10.2008 : “Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the event the matter is treated to be one of ex-facie contempt as defined under Section 14 of the Act quoted hereinabove, the apology can still be considered and appropriate orders may be passed by the learned Single Judge himself on the footing that the case is one under Section 14 and not under Section 15 of the 1971 Act. In view of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the contemner, we are adjourning the matter to enable him to avail this opportunity and file an appropriate fresh application and affidavit before the learned Single Judge.” 19. The Full Bench has not finally determined the issues raised before it and the same are pending for final adjudication before the Full Bench. The issues which have been raised in this appeal also are of the same effect as to whether the proceedings initiated by learned Single Judge has to be treated under Section 14 or under Section 15 as mentioned in the order dated 10.12.2007. Judicial propriety demands that when an issue in the same case is pending consideration before a larger Bench, this Bench hearing the same issues in subsequent contempt appeal may refrain itself from determining the issues finally which have been referred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to a bench of five Hon’ble Judges. 20. From the order of the Division Bench dated 11.12.2007 requesting for referring the case and from the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 2.4.2008, it is clear that the entire contempt case No. 21 of 2007 has been referred to before the larger Bench. The criminal contempt of which learned Single Judge took cognizance was numbered as case No. 21 of 2007 which contempt has been referred to the Full Bench. All aspects of the matter including the issues as to whether the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to consider the application for apology at this stage are issues before the Full Bench for final determination. When Hon’ble the Chief Justice has referred the entire case No. 21 of 2007 to a larger Bench, decision on any issue by this Bench may have bearing on the issues which are for consideration by larger Bench. In our considered opinion, it is appropriate that this contempt appeal be also heard by same larger Bench which is hearing the contempt petition No. 21 of 2007. 21. Let this contempt appeal be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders for hearing of this contempt appeal alongwith contempt petition No. 21 of 2007 by same larger Bench. ————