H.G.RAMESH, J.

1. If no time limit is fixed for compliance of the order, whether action for contempt of court is maintainable in law? This is the short question for consideration in this case. The question is answered in the negative.

2. The case of the complainant is that the order dated 11.01.2016 made in W.P.No.22179/2014 is disobeyed. Hence, he has sought for initiating action against the accused for contempt of court. Operative portion of the order, whose disobedience is complained of herein, reads as follows:

“Accordingly, we pass the following order:

(i) ……………………………………………………………………………………….

(ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services against the sanctioned post.

If the post in which the petitioner is working as Assistant Master is already sanctioned, his services shall be regularized against the said post.

In case if the post in which the petitioner is Working is not sanctioned as on this date, his request for regularization shall be considered against any of the sanctioned post relating to the Assistant Master in any of the Government Sports Schools, if such posts are available and if petitioner is otherwise qualified.

Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.”

3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. As could be seen from the order extracted above, no time is fixed for compliance of the order. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [AIR 1984 SC 1264] has held that, if no time limit is fixed for compliance, action for contempt of court is not tenable. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made therein:

“7. In regard to the rule for contempt of court, we find it difficult to sustain the same. Though ordinarily we would have left the matter to be decided by the High Court, we think it unnecessary to do so in the present case having regard to the elaborate arguments addressed to us by both parties. The complaint of the writ petitioners in seeking the rule for contempt of Court was that the authorities had not dealt with their applications for licences, etc. despite the ‘abeyance’ order having been stayed. It is obvious that the stay of the operation of the ‘abeyance’ order merely meant that the writ petitioners were entitled to have their applications disposed of by the concerned authorities. The High Court not having set any limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it was not for the writ petitioners to impose a time limit and demand that their applications should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the failure of the authorities to dispose of their applications expeditiously, it was open to them to seek a further direction from the court fixing a limit of time within which the applications were to be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports could be said to have committed any contempt of Court, even prima facie, by their mere failure to take action in the matter of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, we perceive the application to commit the authorities for contempt of Court to be a device to exact licences from them.”

(Underlining supplied)

A Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Narayan v. Air India Corporation [2002(2) Kar. L.J. 167], by referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, has observed as follows:

“11. As we have held that when there is no 'direction' or 'writ', the question of wilful disobedience does not arise. Even assuming that there is a direction to consider the applications to be filed by the complainants, failure to do so will not entitle the complainants to file a petition complaining contempt, as no time-limit is fixed for such consideration. In Union of India and Others v. M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited and Others, the Supreme Court held that where no limit of