JUDGMENT : (Muralee Krishna, J.) This contempt appeal is filed by the respondents in Contempt Case (C) No.2380 of 2024 against the interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it was found that prima facie the appellants committed contempt of Court by not releasing the respondent herein, a prisoner in custody who was granted interim bail as per the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.08.2024 in B.A. No.6752 of 2024 and therefore directed to frame charge against the appellants. 2. This contempt appeal was originally filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On 26.11.2024, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (‘ADGP’ for short) and also the learned counsel for the respondent sought time to address arguments on the maintainability of the contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. On 06.12.2024, the learned ADGP filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking an order to treat the appeal as one filed under Sec.5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 instead of Sec.19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. After hearing the preliminary submissions made by both sides, we appointed Advocate K.Rajeev as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Advocate C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to hand over a complete set of appeal memorandum to the learned Amicus Curiae. 3. The facts which lead to the filing of the above contempt appeal can be summarised as follows: 3.1. The respondent is the 3rd accused in Crime No.2414 of 2020 of Venjarammoodu Police Station charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b),323, 324, 302, 120B, 201, 102 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 27 of Arms Act, which is pending trial as S.C.No.260 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is also a life convict and has been undergoing sentence as per the judgment dated 26.03.2021 of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C. No.103 of 2010, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with 34 of IPC. His sentence was not suspended in the convicted case. Meanwhile, he filed B.A. No.6752 of 2024 before this Court seeking interim bail for one week in S.C. No.260 of 2021 to attend the marriage of his daughter, fixed to be held on 18.08.2024. His sentence was not suspended in the convicted case. Meanwhile, he filed B.A. No.6752 of 2024 before this Court seeking interim bail for one week in S.C. No.260 of 2021 to attend the marriage of his daughter, fixed to be held on 18.08.2024. As per the order dated 14.08.2024, the learned Single Judge granted interim bail to the respondent till 21.08.2024 by imposing various conditions and posted the bail application for further consideration to 22.08.2024. As directed in the bail order, on 14.08.2024 the bail bond was executed by the sureties before the Trial Court in S.C. No.260 of 2021. As per Annexure R1(e) official communication dated 14.08.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram directed the 1 st appellant to release the respondent, if he is not required in any other case. By Annexure R1(f) official communication dated 15.08.2024, the 1 st appellant informed the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram that since the respondent is undergoing the sentence in S.C. No. 103 of 2010 and he was not granted bail or interim bail in that case, he could not be released on bail as directed in S.C No.260 of 2021. The learned counsel who filed the bail application on behalf of the respondent thereafter filed Contempt Case (C) No. 238 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge stating that despite the bail order passed by the learned Single Judge, the request of the respondent for emergency leave in S.C No.103 of 2010 was rejected by the 1 st appellant based on a report given by the 2 nd appellant Station House Officer, Venjaramoodu, which in turn was based on alleged intelligence report and the act of the appellants is a civil contempt. 3.2. As per the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, the learned Single Judge found the non-releasing of respondent by the 1 st appellant based on a report filed by the 2 nd appellant prima facie show that the appellants have committed Contempt of Court. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said order read thus: “2. A perusal of the report submitted by the prosecution that led to the Sessions Court rejecting the bail application dated 02.08.2024, raised no apprehension that releasing the petitioner on bail would be a threat to his life or that he would be a threat to others. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said order read thus: “2. A perusal of the report submitted by the prosecution that led to the Sessions Court rejecting the bail application dated 02.08.2024, raised no apprehension that releasing the petitioner on bail would be a threat to his life or that he would be a threat to others. Likewise, the proceedings of the Superintendent of Jail dated 05.08.2024 only said that on the petitioner getting bail in SC 260/2021 in which he is undergoing trial, his request for leave can be considered. Even Annexure R2(e) report received by the SHO dated 17.08.2024 only stated steps to be taken to avoid untoward incidents by the police. 3. As held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.196-197 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.12081-12082 of 2023, disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold. Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a Court's authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of the judicial system. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a Court's order. By failing to adhere to judicial directives, a contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the Court's ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and it's ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively. 4. Though affidavits have been filed by the respondents in the contempt of court case, I do not find them satisfactory at all. There is a clear attempt to see that the order granting bail to the petitioner was rendered ineffective on manufactured reasons. Even if he is a life convict, his application for an emergency leave ought to have been granted based on the existing rules. The first request of the petitioner was turned down stating that he was not on bail in the case in which he was granted interim bail by this Court. Even if he is a life convict, his application for an emergency leave ought to have been granted based on the existing rules. The first request of the petitioner was turned down stating that he was not on bail in the case in which he was granted interim bail by this Court. A reading of the affidavits filed by the respondents and the documents, prima facie show that the respondents have committed contempt of court through wilful disobedience to flout the orders of this Court, by joining hands to neutralize the effect of the interim bail passed by this Court in utter disregard to the relevant rules.” 4. Heard the learned ADGP, the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae, Advocate K. Rajeev submitted that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, since it is an interim order. However, the learned Amicus Curiae maintained the stand that an appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is maintainable against the impugned order. Various judgments of the Apex Court, including Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ] was relied on by the learned Amicus Curiae in support of his aforesaid submission. 6. The learned ADGP argued that though an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable against the impugned order, as per the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court an intra-Court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act is maintainable. The respondent is convicted in a double murder case as per the judgment in S.C.No.103 of 2010 by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. The daughter of the respondent had previously filed an application on 31.07.2024 for emergency leave to the respondent. However, her application was not proceeded further, as the respondent was not on bail in S.C. No.260 of 2021 on the file of Additional Session Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The application for emergency leave filed by the daughter of the respondent was rejected and was duly informed to her in writing on 05.08.2024. However, her application was not proceeded further, as the respondent was not on bail in S.C. No.260 of 2021 on the file of Additional Session Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The application for emergency leave filed by the daughter of the respondent was rejected and was duly informed to her in writing on 05.08.2024. On 14.08.2024, the daughter of the respondent filed another application for emergency leave in the light of granting him bail by the learned Single Judge in B.A. No.6752 of 2024 and she was orally intimated by the 1 st appellant that the respondent cannot be released on bail as he is serving life sentence without bail or parole. Apart from that, the 1 st appellant sought a report from the 2 nd appellant as stipulated under Rule 400(3) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (‘Prison Rules’ for short) on 14.08.2024 itself as per Annexure R2(e) message. On 16.08.2024 the 2 nd appellant through the District Police Chief (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram, sent Annexure R1(g) report to the 1 st appellant expressing great concern against granting emergency leave to the respondent. Considering the said report, by Annexure R1(h) order dated 16.08.2024, the application for emergency leave submitted by the daughter of the respondent was rejected by the 1 st appellant and intimated the same to the respondent under proper acknowledgment. The 1 st appellant offered an escort visit to the respondent as envisaged in Rule 415 of the Prisons Rules for attending the marriage of his daughter. But the respondent refused to avail the said offer. The learned ADGP vehemently argued that the respondent could not be released on interim bail as directed in the bail order of the learned Single Judge, since he was undergoing sentence in another double murder case and the mandatory police report to grant emergency leave was against him. There is no wilful violation of the bail order of the learned Single Judge and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal is not maintainable either under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. On merits, the learned counsel vehemently argued that there are several types of leave entitled to a prisoner under the Prison Rules. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal is not maintainable either under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. On merits, the learned counsel vehemently argued that there are several types of leave entitled to a prisoner under the Prison Rules. For attending the marriage of near relatives such as children, siblings, etc., there is a provision under Rule 400 of the Prison Rules for emergency leave. The application for emergency leave has to be considered on the basis of the report of the Station House Officer and the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent. However, there is no bar in granting emergency leave to an inmate of prison even if the police report is against him. The appellants purposefully created an adverse report in connivance with each other later on, so as to claim that the respondent was not granted emergency leave due to that adverse report. In fact the 1 st appellant had decided not to release the respondent on bail as directed in the interim bail order granted by the learned Single Judge, much prior to the receipt of the report of the 2 nd appellant. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge prima facie finding that the appellants have committed civil contempt. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae, the learned ADGP, and the learned counsel for the respondent have cited various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court on the issue of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. We will discuss the judgments necessary to decide the issue under consideration in the later part of this judgment. 9. The issues that arise for consideration in this writ appeal are: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to challenge the impugned order under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958? 9. The issues that arise for consideration in this writ appeal are: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to challenge the impugned order under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958? (ii) If entitled, whether any interference is warranted to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge wherein it was found that the act of the 1 st appellant non-releasing the respondent on interim bail as directed in the bail order passed by the learned Single Judge, prima facie proves civil contempt so as to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? 10. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with appeals which reads thus: “ 19. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt— (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that- (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed-- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against”. 11. While coming to the appeal provision in Kerala High Court Act, 1958, Section 5 of that Act, reads thus: “ 5. 11. While coming to the appeal provision in Kerala High Court Act, 1958, Section 5 of that Act, reads thus: “ 5. Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from-- (i) a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction; or (ii) a judgment of a Single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of original jurisdiction by a subordinate Court; [x x x x] [(iii) x x x x]] 12. The 1st point before us is the maintainability of the appeal either under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act against the impugned interlocutory order. The learned ADGP, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Amicus Curiae, agreed on the point that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable against the impugned order, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. [ 2006(5) SCC 399 ] and that of the Full Bench of this Court in Suni B.T v. Vinayaka Granites [2025 (1) KLT 287] However, the maintainability of the appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is also disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, when the learned ADGP as well as the learned Amicus Curiae took a stand that the appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is maintainable against the impugned order. 13. In Purushotam Dass Goel v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon and Others [ (1978) 2 SCC 370 ] the challenge before a two-judge bench of the Apex Court, in an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, was against an order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana issuing notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of the High Court. Upholding the objection raised by the respondents that no appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act from an order issuing notice, the Apex Court held thus: “3. Upholding the objection raised by the respondents that no appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act from an order issuing notice, the Apex Court held thus: “3. In our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is well founded and must be accepted as correct. S.19 (1) says :- "An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt - (a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court; Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court." It would appear from a plain reading of the section that an appeal shall lie to this Court as a matter of right from any order or decision of a bench of the High Court if the order has been made in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. No appeal can lie as a matter of right from any kind of order made by the High Court in the proceeding for contempt. The proceeding is initiated under S.17 by issuance of a notice. Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the said proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the legislature to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and every such order made by the High Court. The order or the decision must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Mere initiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question. This Court, for the first time, cannot be asked in such an appeal to decide whether the person proceeded against has committed contempt of the High court or not. This Court, for the first time, cannot be asked in such an appeal to decide whether the person proceeded against has committed contempt of the High court or not. The matter has to be decided either finally or, may be, even at an earlier stage an order is made, which does decide a contention raised by the alleged contemner asking the High Court to drop the proceeding. It is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be appealable to this Court under S.19. A final order, surely will be appealable. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, to S.20 of the Act which provides :- "No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." He submitted that initiation of the proceeding by the High Court will be without jurisdiction if it is in violation of S.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 S.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 S.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 example to show that even orders made at some intermediate stage in the proceeding may be appealable under S.19. In our considered judgment, an order merely initiating the proceeding without anything further, does not decide anything against the alleged contemner and cannot be appealed against as a matter of right under S.19. In a given case special leave may be granted under Art.136 of the Constitution from an order initiating the proceeding. But that is entirely a different matter. What we are deciding in this case is that the present appeal filed under S.19 (1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. In a given case special leave may be granted under Art.136 of the Constitution from an order initiating the proceeding. But that is entirely a different matter. What we are deciding in this case is that the present appeal filed under S.19 (1) of the Act does not lie and is incompetent. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 399] the Apex court considered the issue of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act before the Division Bench against an order of a learned Single Judge, issuing show cause notice to the contemnor prima facie finding him as committed contempt, by violating the direction of the learned Single Judge to complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner therein within the time frame stipulated in the judgment. After considering the provisions in the Contempt of Courts Act and also referring to the law laid down in Baradakanta Mishra [ (1975) 3 SCC 535 ] , Purshotam Dass Goel [(1978) 2 SCC 370], State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy [ (1996) 4 SCC 411 ] and J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [ (1996) 6 SCC 291 ] the Apex Court, summarized the position with regard to the maintainability of the appeal against an interlocutory order of a single judge in contempt proceedings thus: “11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus: I. An appeal under S.19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under S.19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Art.136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under S.19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under S.19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Art.136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)”. (Emphasis supplied) 15. Again in Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit [ 2024 (5) KHC 511 ] by following the decision in Midnapore, the Apex Court held that it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. 16. In Suni B.T [2025 (1) KLT 287], the Full Bench of this Court answered a reference made to it by a Division Bench as to whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, when the Court after forming a prima facie opinion proceeds to frame charges under Rule 14(b) of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules framed under the Act. The Full Bench after a detailed analysis of the law on the point, overruled the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil.C (Dr.) v. Dr.Selsa. The Full Bench after a detailed analysis of the law on the point, overruled the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil.C (Dr.) v. Dr.Selsa. S [ 2024 (4) KHC 89 ] and held that for an appeal to lie under Section 19(1), the impugned order must be inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt and cannot be independent of it. It must flow from the order punishing for contempt. All procedural steps leading to the order of punishment cannot be termed as incidental to the order punishing for contempt. For the second part of clause (IV) in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ] to apply, there must be first an order punishing for contempt. This position of law is expounded also by earlier decisions on the subject by the Apex Court referred to earlier. An order proceeding to frame and framing charges being merely a stage prior to the order of punishment cannot be considered as inextricably connected to or incidental to the order punishing for contempt. The order inextricably connected to such orders can be direction to purge the contempt, which also can be challenged under Section 19(1) along with the order punishing for contempt. It also has to be kept in mind that the judge decides whether contempt of the "court" is committed. The contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor and are not a lis between the parties. When the court declares that contempt is committed and passes an order in its contempt jurisdiction, an appeal will lie. The contempt proceedings are not complete or final until the punishment is rendered. The proceedings are concluded only after the Court renders a final decision, which includes determining a sentence upon finding the party guilty of contempt. If any positive direction is given that is incidental to and connected with the order of punishing for contempt, then under an appeal filed under Section 19 can be filed challenging both the order of punishing for contempt and the order that is incidental to it. When any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal (wherever such a provision exists) would be maintainable. When any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal (wherever such a provision exists) would be maintainable. Hence, the scheme of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Rules framed thereunder, and the decisions of the Apex Court, particularly in the case of in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ] indicate that only those orders which are inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment can be the subject matter of an appeal along with the order imposing punishment. To reiterate the phrase inextricably connected or incidental "to the order imposing punishment" mean that there must first be an order of punishment. Proceeding to framing charges for contempt is thus not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act. 17. In the impugned order the learned Single Judge found that the appellants have prima facie committed the contempt and posted the case for framing charge. The further steps as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules framed under that Act are yet to be taken by the learned Single Judge. Viewed in the light of the decisions referred to above, it is clear that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable against that order as that order would not fall under the category of order which is inextricably connected to and incidental to the order of punishment. Now the question that requires consideration is whether an appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, is maintainable. 18. In Santha Paulose and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam [ 2011 (2) KLT 946 ] a Division Bench of this Court held thus: “5. The above issue had come up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court on earlier occasions. In Rasheed v. Saji Basheer, 2005 KHC 542 : 2005 (2) KLT 106 : ILR 2005 (2) Ker. The above issue had come up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court on earlier occasions. In Rasheed v. Saji Basheer, 2005 KHC 542 : 2005 (2) KLT 106 : ILR 2005 (2) Ker. 13 : 2005 CriLJ 1638, a Division Bench of this Court has laid down that an order passed by a Single Judge in a contempt proceeding can be challenged under S.5 of the High Court Act by the contemnor, if the learned Single Judge passes any order adverse to him even while discharging him from the contempt proceeding. It has been further laid down that the Division Bench can, in an appeal under S.5 of the High Court Act, always intervene if the order passed by a learned Single Judge in a contempt proceeding runs beyond the scope of the order.” (emphasis supplied) 19. After considering the relevant provisions of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act and under the Kerala High Court Act and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ] and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Suni B.T [2025 (1) KLT 287] this Court by the judgment dated 03.03.2025 in Cont.Appeal (C) No.1 of 2025 [2025 KHC Online 268] found that when the interlocutory order under challenge decided an issue or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter in that order, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act and such an intra-court appeal has to be filed as a writ appeal. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co. Op. Bank Ltd. [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ] and followed by the Full Bench in Suni B.T. [2025 (1) KLT 287] and also the judgment of this Court dated 03.03.2025 in Cont.Appeal (C) No.1 of 2025 [2025 KHC Online 268] it is clear that when an issue is decided or direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings, then an intra-court appeal would be maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. Such an intra-court appeal has to be filed as a writ appeal, which has to be listed before the Division Bench as per the roster, and not before the Division Bench dealing with contempt appeals. 21. In such circumstances, this contempt appeal filed by the appellants challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge is dismissed as not maintainable; however without prejudice to the right of the appellants to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, in case that order falls under the category of appealable order, i.e., order in which any issue is decided or a direction is issued on the merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the issue as to whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is an order appealable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, in an intra-court appeal. Before parting we appreciate the efforts of the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. K.Rajeev, who rendered necessary assistance to us by placing various judgments on the point for our consideration.