Judgment :- H.L. Gokhale, J. The petitioner is an advocate practicing in this High Court. He has filed this petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to amendment dated 20th September, 2007 amending Rule 6 (Sub-rules 2 & 3) of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 and quash the same as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. The petitioner has appeared in person. Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr. V. Ayyathurai, learned counsel and Respondent No.2 - Government of Tamil Nadu is represented by Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General. 3. Sub-Rules 2 & 3 of Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 prior to the impugned amendment, read as follows: - “6(2) Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges in respect of whose Judgment, Decree, Direction, Order, writ or other process the contempt is alleged, for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner. 6(3) In case the Judge or Judges concerned is or are not available, the Chief Justice may direct that the application be posted before some other Judge or Judges as the case may be for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner.” 4. The aforesaid Rule was amended by amendment No.ROC No.855-A/2000/PR dated 20th September, 2007 and the amendment reads as follows: - “In Rule 6, Sub Rule (2) of the Contempt of Court Rules, High Court, Madras, 1975, the following provision shall be inserted in the place of the existing provision. “Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner.” Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, shall stand deleted and sub-rules (4) to (6) shall be numbered as (3) to (5)” 5. “Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner.” Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, shall stand deleted and sub-rules (4) to (6) shall be numbered as (3) to (5)” 5. The principal submission of the petitioner is that the High Court is a court of record as provided by Article 215 of the Constitution of India and once a Judge or a Bench of the High Court has passed an order or direction, (the breach of which is complained of by the aggrieved party), the same Judge or Bench, which has the record of the case, must hear the contempt petition. According to the petitioner, this amended Rule, insofar as it permits the hearing of a petition alleging civil contempt in connection with breach or violation of an order passed by a learned Judge, who is nominated by the Chief Justice (and who is other than the Judge or Judges who have passed the concerned order), is therefore ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 6. Now we shall refer to the relevant provisions in this behalf. Civil Contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as follows: - “2(b) - civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.” 7. Article 214 of the Constitution states that there shall be a High Court for each State. Article 216 of the Constitution provides for the Constitution of High Courts, and it states that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. Article 215 of the Constitution, which is pressed into service by the petitioner for voiding the Rule in question, reads as under:- “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 ” 8. It is relevant to note that the Allahabad High Court almost had a similar Rule being Rule 4(a) of Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It is relevant to note that the Allahabad High Court almost had a similar Rule being Rule 4(a) of Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The said Rule reads as under: - “4(a) Every case relating to civil contempt shall be presented before the Bench of a Single Judge constituted for that purpose.” A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court took the view that the provision of this Rule flies in the face of Article 215 of the Constitution of India insofar as the Rule provides hearing of such contempt petition by a Judge other than the one who passed the order of which a breach is complained, and therefore, to that extent was null and void and in operative in law. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar carried the matter in appeal to the Apex Court. The Apex Court reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court and held the Rule to be a valid Rule. The above judgment, which arose from the case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar v. Raj Kishore Yadav, is reported in 1997 (3) SCC 11 . 9. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court referred to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 225 of the Constitution of India and then observed in para-9 as follows: - “....Thus a conjoint reading of Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 225 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that every High Court by its own rules can provide for exercise of its jurisdiction, original or appellate, by one or more Judges or by division courts consisting of two or more Judges of the High Courts and it is for the Chief Justice of each High Court to determine what Judge in each case is to sit alone or what Judges of the court whether with or without the Chief Justice are to constitute several division courts?. 10. 10. Thereafter in para-11, it laid down the law in terms in the following words: - “The civil contempt alleged is the contempt of the High Court as such and not the contempt of the author of the order being the Judge concerned who might have passed the said order, whether interim or final. When civil contempt by way of breach of such an order is alleged it is the institution of the High Court as such which is said to have been contemptuously dealt with by the contemnor concerned. For upholding the majesty of the institution as such, therefore, the High Court as a court of record can look into the grievance centring round the alleged breach of its order and it is this power to punish the contemnor that flows from Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as from the relevant provisions of the Act. But how this grievance of the aggrieved party is to be processed and examined pertains to the realm of distribution of work and jurisdiction of the High Court amongst different Division Benches and that exercise is permissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court as per the rules framed by the High Court on its administrative side. That exercise has nothing to do with Article 215. Article 215 saves the inherent powers of the High Court as a court of record to suitably punish the contemnor who is alleged to have committed civil contempt of its order. Order might have been passed by any of the learned Judges exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court as per the work assigned to them under the Rules by the orders of the Chief Justice, but once such an order is passed by a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench of two or more Judges the order becomes the order of the High Court. Breach of such an order which gives rise to contempt proceedings also pertains to the contempt of the High Court as an institution. Breach of such an order which gives rise to contempt proceedings also pertains to the contempt of the High Court as an institution. At that stage Article 215 does not operate, but it is only Article 225 read with the Rules framed by the High Court on administrative side and the power inhering in the Chief Justice, of assigning work to the appropriate Bench of Judge or Judges, under Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915 read with Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which would have its full play. Consequently if under the impugned Rule the task of considering the grievances of the aggrieved party in connection with civil contempts of High Courts orders is assigned to one of the Judges of the High Court it cannot be said that thereby the impugned Rule has in any manner affected the status of the High Court as a court of record. In our view, the aforesaid judgment clearly answers the query raised by the petitioner. 11. The other judgment cited by the petitioner was in the case of Pallav Seth vs. Custodian reported in 2001 (7) SCC 549 . That was however concerning the period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings and how the same can be initiated. As observed by the Apex Court itself in para-32 of that judgment, there was no challenge to the validity of any of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in that matter. 12. The last submission of the petitioner was that the impugned Rule is ultra vires Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said Section reads as follows: - “Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure. A bare perusal of the above section makes it clear that the section itself states that the High Court may make rules governing the procedure to deal with the cases of contempt, but the rules so made must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. A bare perusal of the above section makes it clear that the section itself states that the High Court may make rules governing the procedure to deal with the cases of contempt, but the rules so made must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. We have not been pointed out as to how the Rule, which permits an application seeking the action for contempt to be posted before the Judge or Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, is in any way violative of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 13. In the circumstances, the submission of the petitioner that the impugned amendment of the concerned Rule is ultra vires Articles 215 & 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is hereby repelled. The amended Rule 6(2) of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 is held to be valid and legal, and not inconsistent with the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution or of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 14. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.