A. H. JOSHI, J.:- This Miscellaneous Civil Application is listed before the Court in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Smt. R. P. Sondur Baldota, 1.) by order dated 12th March. 2010 and is allotted to us by the Hon 'ble The Chief Justice.

2. The question for determination is as follows :-

Whether the High Court while exercising power under the Contempt of Courts Act, by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India has jurisdiction to review its own order?

3. It would not be necessary to deal with the facts of the case as the question to be decided in this reference is a pure question of law.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. R. L. Khapre has placed reliance on various citations which are 20 in number. We have perused all those citations. It would be totally unnecessary even to refer to each citation and we shall refer to those which are discussed in the judgment, which has led to this reference. and the judgment in case of Metal Box India Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 528 and few Judgments of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court which re-state the law. In case of Metal Box (supra), the notice of motion was made to seek review in Contempt Petition No.20 of 2003. The Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M Khanwilkar) observed in the relevant part as follows:

''The moot question, however, that arises for my consideration is, whether this Court, while exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, for that matter, by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has jurisdiction review its own order. To my mind, the answer is plainly in the negative."

The reading of judgment in case of Metal Box (supra) further reveals that the learned Single Judge was persuaded to place reliance on following two reported Judgments:

[I] State Vs. Baldev Raj reported in 1992 CRI.L.J. 1251 (1).

[2] Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2763.

6. Having considered the position that law as laid down by Hon 'ble Supreme Court being clear enough, it is not necessary to deal with the case of State Vs. Baldev Raj (supra).

7. In case of Pallav Seth. the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi Vs. Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court. reported in AIR 1954 SC 186 was also considered and there was no occasion available before Hon'ble Supreme Court to record any dissent there from.

8. In case of Pallav Sheth. the Hon 'ble Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that Limitation Act applies to the proceedings of Contempt of Court, and held in para 30 thereof as follows:

"30. There can be no doubt both this Court and High Courts are Courts of Record and the Constitution has given them the powers to punish for contempt. The decisions of this Court clearly show that this power cannot be abrogated or stultified, But if the power under Art.129 and Art.215 is absolute can there be any legislation indicating the manner and to the extent that the power can be exercised? If there is any provision of the law which stultifies or abrogates that power under Art. 129 and/or Art.215 there can be little doubt that such law would not be regarded as having been validly enacted. It, however, appears to us that providing for the quantum of punishment or what mayor may not be regarded as acts of contempt or even providing for a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for contempt cannot be taken to be a provision which abrogates or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Art.129 or Art.215 of the Constitution." Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 41 of the Judgment as follows:

"41. An interpretation of Section 20, like the one canvassed by the Appellant, which would render the constitutional power of the Courts nugatory in taking action for contempt even in cases of gross contempt, successfully hidden for a period of one year by practicing fraud by the contemner would render Section 20 as liable to be regarded as being in conflict with Art.l29 and/or Art.215.