The obligation to decide on a college application is a one-time duty, and failure to comply does not constitute a continuing wrong, making the contempt petition filed beyond the limitation period inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

(R.W. JOSHI, J.) :

1. The present contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12627 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is a public trust, which is functioning in the field of education. The petitioner intended to start a college for studies in social work, which would impart education to students for pursuing courses of Bachelor of Social Work and Masters of Social Work. The petitioner had submitted an application for starting college to the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance of the Government of Maharashtra in the month of April, 2022. The petitioner submits that all the concerned authorities had given positive recommendation for granting permission to the petitioner to start the college. However, the respondent in the writ petition did not decide the application as consequence of which the petitioner was constrained to file a petition, being Writ Petition No. 12627/2022 seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent in the writ petition to take decision on the proposal of the petitioner for starting the said college. The said petition came to be decided vide order dated 15.12.2022, whereby directions were issued to the respondent – State to take appropriate decision on the proposal submitted by the petitioner on or before 31.01.2023.

3. The petitioner contends that the respondent in the writ petition has not taken any decision in the matter, as directed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2022. It will be pertinent to mention here that initially, the State of Maharashtra was arrayed as respondent in the contempt petition through the Secretary in the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance. However, vide Government Resolution dated 29.02.2024, the subject, “Social Work Colleges (BSW/MSW courses)” has been transferred to the Department of Higher and Technical Education. In view of the aforesaid, the Secretaries in the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Higher and Technical Education have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the present contempt petition.

4. As stated above, the present petition is filed in view of non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court, in as much as, no decision is taken on the proposal of the petitioner on or before 31.01.2023 i.e. the time fixed by this Court for taking the said decision.

5. The present contempt petition is filed on 14.10.2024. The cause of action for filing the present contempt petition arose on 01.02.2023 i.e. on the day falling 31.01.2023 on or before which appropriate decision was required to be taken. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes limitation of one year for filing of the contempt petition. The limitation prescribed by Section 20 is also applicable to the contempt petitions entertained in exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Legal position in this regard is settled by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the latest being, in the matter of S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and others reported in AIR Online 2024 SC 509. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated unequivocal term that period of one year of limitation prescribed under Section 20 shall also apply to a contempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The aspect of continuing cause of action is also dealt with in the said judgement.

6. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner as also Mr. A.M. Phule, learned A.G.P. representing the respondents rely on the said judgment. Whereas, the learned A.G.P. contends that the contempt petition is barred by limitation since it is filed beyond a period of one year from the date fixed for deciding the application, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that failure to take decision on the proposal for starting a new college is continuing cause of action, and therefore, the conte