JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant/petitioner (for short the appellant) aggrieved of the order dated 17th of July, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 574 of 2012, Ranjeet Singh v. Shri K.K. Pathak dismissing the contempt petition, has preferred the abovenoted special appeal. 2. Shron off the unnecessary details, the material facts and particulars necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the special appeal are that the appellant preferred a writ application, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th of December, 2011; with a direction to the appellant to remain present in the office of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the Commission), where he would be shown the names of the candidates between Roll Number 46551 to 46800, and in the event of detection of his name and Roll Number a copy of the marks-sheet may be provided to him. If the Roll Number and name of the appellant is not detected, the Commission cannot be faulted for non-supply of duplicate mark-sheet. 3. The appellant alleging non-compliance of the order dated 5th of December, 2011 initiated contempt proceedings, pleading that he was informed on 14th of December, 2011 that the number-wise guide book and Alfa list of that time, have already been weeded out as per weeding out parameters. Taking note of the fact that the appellant approached this Court in the year 2011, seeking necessary direction to secure a copy of his marks, with reference to an competitive examination which was concluded in the year 1990; the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013 dismissed the contempt petition, observing that initiation of the contempt proceedings was nothing but gross misuse of process of law. 4. The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that on 14th of December, 2011, he was furnished with a list running in two pages, which was incomplete and wrong. However, after a detailed scrutiny of the list and reply furnished by the Commission, he realised that Roll Numbers 46726 and 46727-28, were shown to be absent at the examination. 4. The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that on 14th of December, 2011, he was furnished with a list running in two pages, which was incomplete and wrong. However, after a detailed scrutiny of the list and reply furnished by the Commission, he realised that Roll Numbers 46726 and 46727-28, were shown to be absent at the examination. The appellant further stated that the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in response to an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, admitted the fact that if the appellant made available his Roll Number, the information about the result of the competitive examination conducted in the year 1989-90 could be furnished to him. The appellant further submitted that he indicated his Roll Number as 46598, but the learned Single Judge without considering the facts and material available on record dismissed the contempt petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013. 5. We have heard the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for state-respondent and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 6. The appellant during the course of arguments on 22nd of October, 2013 produced a document Claiming his eligibility to take the main examination in the concerned selection process in the year 1989-90 as according to him, he was successful in the pre-examination. 7. A pare perusal of the nature of the direction given by the learned Single Judge on the writ application of the appellant and as considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the contempt petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013, would reveal that the respondent-non-petitioner made the information available to the appellant in compliance of the direction issued in the writ application. 8. However, before entering into the merits of the appeal, the moot question for determination is whether an intra-court appeal is available under Section 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1952, for short), which reads thus:- "134. (i) Appeal to the High Court from Judgment of Judges of the Court:- An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a final order (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. (i) Appeal to the High Court from Judgment of Judges of the Court:- An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a final order (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 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 or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court. (ii) Special appeal. - A person desiring to prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge shall present a duly stamped memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the date of such judgment. Where such appeal is presented after the period mentioned above, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and it shall be rejected unless the appellant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for non preferring the appeal within the aforesaid time. The memorandum of appeal shall be drawn-up in accordance with Rules 125, 130 and 131 of this Chapter and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from alongwith two extra typed copies of the judgment or order." 9. The writ application preferred by the appellant was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th of December, 2011 with the following directions:- "In view of the submissions made by the parties, petitioner is directed to remain present in the office of the Commission on 14.12.2011, where, he would be shown names of the candidates falling between Roll No. 46551 to 46800. If his name is traced out with the roll number, a copy of the mark sheet may be provided to him and if his name is not traced out, commission cannot be accused for non-supply of duplicate mark sheet in absence of roll number." 10. If his name is traced out with the roll number, a copy of the mark sheet may be provided to him and if his name is not traced out, commission cannot be accused for non-supply of duplicate mark sheet in absence of roll number." 10. Alleging willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on the writ application vide order dated 5th of December, 2011 as extracted hereinabove, the appellant initiated contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971 for short) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for punishing the respondents. 11. The contempt petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17th of July, 2013 further observing the initiation of contempt proceedings as a misuse of process of law and the appellant deserved imposition of cost, but since he appeared in person, no cost was imposed. 12. The present appeal has been preferred under Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 by the appellant questioning the dismissal of the contempt petition for the reason that since the impugned judgment and order dismissing the contempt petition under appeal violated the rights of the appellant and therefore, a judgment within the meaning of Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 though no appeal lies under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971. 13. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971 would reveal that an appeal would be maintainable only when the High Court makes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction imposing punishment for contempt so also the power and jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution is exercised by the High Court while imposing punishment for contempt and when it does not impose any punishment, exercise of its jurisdiction or power to punish under Article 215 of the Constitution of India simply does not arise. Therefore, when the contemnor is acquitted, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt for the reason that such exercise in the event of imposing punishment, for contempt, will require it to act in a particular manner and no other. Therefore, when the contemnor is acquitted, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt for the reason that such exercise in the event of imposing punishment, for contempt, will require it to act in a particular manner and no other. When the person initiating contempt proceedings is aggrieved of dismissal of the contempt petition, such interested person is not without remedy in the law as it will be open for him to approach the Honble Apex Court of the land under Article 136 of the Constitution, but in any case appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971 would not be competent for refusal to exercise the jurisdiction by the High Court to punish the contemnor. By now, it is well settled that any person who initiates contempt proceedings only brings to the notice of the Court the act of the defaulting party, which amounts to contempt of Court and thereafter, the contempt proceedings becomes the subject matter between the Court and the contemnor(s). 14. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and therefore, its existence will depend upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971, which provides a right of appeal and the aggrieved party therein could be contemnor(s) punished for contempt and none other. 15. We are fortified in our view by the opinion of the Honble Apex Court of the land in case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held thus:- "12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the 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 contempt of court. 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 contempt of 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 maybe 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." 16. The Honble Apex Court of the land in the case of D.N. Taneja (supra) observed that no doubt 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 but the power or jurisdiction is to be exercised in a particular manner and the exercise of power or jurisdiction will involve in acting in that particular manner or no other. The High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for contempt after hearing the parties and considering the materials brought on record and, if, necessary after examination of the witnesses and when the contemnor is acquitted, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt so long no punishment is imposed. Therefore, in the instant case at hand the High Court did not exercise the jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution. Moreover, since the person who moves the machinery of the Court for contempt only brings to the notice of the Court those facts constituting contempt and thereafter, the contempt proceedings are between the Court and the contemnor, hence, the appellant/applicant whose contempt petition has been dismissed vide order dated 17th of July, 2013, is not an aggrieved person and therefore, he cannot be treated as a party juris, entitled to any order of commitment of the opponent as a right because he being only an informant. 17. 17. Having regard to the nature of the impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the contempt petition preferred by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the matter was between the Court of the contemnor but that does not mean that the appellant is an aggrieved person and that appears to be the intention of the Legislature in not providing for a right of appeal in the event of dismissal of the contempt petition. 18. The right of appeal is restricted by Section 19(1) of the Act of 1971 and once, the Legislature restricted the right of appeal, in our opinion, that restriction would also apply over Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 as Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 is subject to the provisions of prescribing right of appeal provided under the Act of 1971. Parliament while enacting the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 restricted the right of appeal, hence, that right of appeal and that restriction, in our considered view prevails over Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 and therefore, the present appeal under Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 is not competent. 19. For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appeal is incompetent and merits rejection. Ordered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 20. However, it will always be open for the appellant to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for redressal of his alleged grievance.Appeal Dismissed. *******