JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.P. Mishra and Mr. K.M. Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. This special appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 2.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge while exercising his contempt jurisdiction in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1785 of 2019, whereby after recording a finding that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have taken a decision on the proposal in accordance with certain Rules, the application moved by the appellant seeking dismissal of the contempt application has been rejected. Learned Contempt Judge has, however, being lenient and benevolent, has made it open to the appellant to revisit the decision in accordance with certain Rules and file an affidavit of compliance, failing which, it has further been ordered that the charges shall be framed. The officer, namely the appellant, has been ordered to appear again on the next date. 3. We have been informed that by the order under appeal dated 2.11.2022 the contempt matter was listed on 21.11.2022. On 21.11.2022 a request was made on behalf of the appellant by none other than the learned Additional Advocate General to grant some time to comply with the order passed by the writ court. Accordingly, the contempt matter was fixed on 28.11.2022. We have also been informed that on 28.11.2022 the learned Contempt Judge was apprised of the present special appeal and accordingly the contempt matter has now been fixed for 30.11.2022. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the writ court by means of order dated 8.7.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.17187 (SS) of 2019, the contempt of which has been alleged in the contempt proceedings, had directed the appellant to take a final decision in terms of 1978 Rules within a period of two weeks and that by the time decision pursuant to the said order could be taken by the appellant amendment in the Rules was promulgated on 4.12.2019. Submission is that in compliance of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Writ Court, decision by the appellant was taken firstly on 17.10.2019 and thereafter again on 9.1.2020 and on the date second decision on 9.1.2020 was taken, amendment in the Rules was already in vogue having been promulgated on 4.12.2019. Submission is that in compliance of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Writ Court, decision by the appellant was taken firstly on 17.10.2019 and thereafter again on 9.1.2020 and on the date second decision on 9.1.2020 was taken, amendment in the Rules was already in vogue having been promulgated on 4.12.2019. It is thus submitted that learned Single Judge while dealing with the contempt matter has recorded a wrong finding regarding disobedience of the order passed by the writ court by observing that the decision ought to have been taken in terms of the unamended Rules. It has further been argued that the learned Contempt Judge has given a direction in the order under appeal, dated 2.11.2022 that the appellant shall revisit earlier decision in accordance with the unamended Rules and file an affidavit of compliance and such a direction could not have been given by the learned Contempt Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is this direction which has led the appellant to institute the proceedings of this special appeal which is maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others; (2006) 5 SCC 399 . 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents has, however, opposed the special appeal by submitting that the special appeal is not maintainable. 6. The legal position about the maintainability of the intra-court appeal in respect of the orders passed by Contempt Judge while exercising the contempt jurisdiction is not in dispute. Any special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules of the Court will be maintainable against an order passed by learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction only if he issues any direction or decides any issue touching the merits of the dispute between the parties, however, no such appeal will be available in case any order in interregnum is passed in the course of contempt proceedings. The question, thus, which arises in this case is as to whether the learned Contempt Judge while passing the order dated 2.11.2022 has issued any direction to the appellant touching the merit of the dispute between the parties. 7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The writ court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.17187 (SS) of 2019 had directed the appellant to take a decision in terms of 1978 Rules. 7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The writ court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.17187 (SS) of 2019 had directed the appellant to take a decision in terms of 1978 Rules. The first decision pursuant to the said order dated 8.7.2019 was taken by the appellant on 17.10.2019. Thereafter Rules were amended on 4.12.2019 and again a decision was taken on 9.1.2020. If the appellant had any doubt as to whether the decision in compliance of the order dated 8.7.2019, passed by writ court is to be taken in accordance with the amended or unamended Rules, it was always open to the appellant to have sought modification/clarification of the order dated 8.7.2019, passed by learned writ court. Instead, the appellant appears to have taken a decision in compliance of the order passed by writ court, dated 8.7.2019 in terms of amended Rules, which were amended on 4.12.2019. As to whether such a stance or stand taken by the appellant amounts to contempt or not is the preserve of the learned Contempt Judge dealing with the contempt matter. Any finding returned by the Contempt Judge in respect of the issue as to whether contempt has been committed or not cannot, in our opinion, cannot be the subject matter of the special appeal in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Limited (supra). 8. Even otherwise when we peruse the order dated 2.11.2022, passed by learned Contempt Judge, we do not find that any specific direction has been issued to the appellant; what rather has been done by learned Contempt judge is that it has been made open to the appellant to revisit the entire matter in view of the findings recorded in the order dated 2.11.2022 in its preceding paragraphs by learned Contempt Judge. Learned Contempt judge has only made it open to the contemnor to revisit the decision thereby giving an opportunity to comply with the order dated 8.7.2019, passed by writ court. 9. For the reasons disclosed above, in our considered opinion, the special appeal is not maintainable, which is hereby dismissed.