Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
Begunkodar High School
vs.
Samarendra Bandopadhaya & Ors.
WRIT Matter No. 2427 of 1993
Decided On : September 12, 1996
Contempt of Court - Limitation - Violation of High Court Order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India - Applicability of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt rule was issued for the violation of orders dated 14.10.1990 and 22.06.1992, passed by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had directed the Director of School Education, West Bengal, to sanction the required number of teaching staff in accordance with the principles and policies laid down in the Government Orders and Circulars, on the basis of the representation and materials before it, within four months from the date of the order. The Director of School Education had sanctioned ten posts, but the remaining posts were not sanctioned, despite a representation from the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
1. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is not applicable to proceedings for contempt for violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The disobedience of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a continuous process and cannot be limited to the date on which the order was passed. 3. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to preserve the majesty of law, keep the stream of justice clear and pure, and ensure that the orders passed by the High Court are carried out.
Issues: 1. Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, applies to contempt proceedings initiated for violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the disobedience of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a continuous process or a one-time act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's power to punish for contempt of itself under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is a special one and is not derived from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, which prescribe a limitation period for contempt proceedings, do not apply to contempt proceedings initiated for violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The disobedience of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a continuous process because it involves a failure to comply with a rule or requirement that continues until the rule or requirement is obeyed or complied with.
Final Decision: The contempt rule was disposed of with directions to the Director of School Education, West Bengal, to consider the petitioner's representation for sanctioning of posts and pass an appropriate order within six weeks from the date of the order.
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.: The contempt rule was issued for the violation of the orders dated 14.10.1990 and 22.06.1992, passed by this Court. On behalf of the opposite party/contemner, the preliminary point has been taken that the contempt application has become barred by limitation.
2. A question arises in this case whether the period of limitation prescribed under s. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, will apply in a contempt proceeding initiated by the High Court not only for the purpose of violation of the order passed by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India but also' in exercise of the power conferred on the High Court under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India.
3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that "Every High Court shall be a Court of record "and shall have the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt itself".
4. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that "No Court shall initiate any proceeding for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after expiry for a period of one year from the date of which contempt is alleged to have been committed".
5. Expression 'Contempt of Court' has been defined under sub-s. 2(a) which means 'civil contempt or criminal contempt;' 'Civil Contempt' is defined under s. 2(b) which means 'wilful disobedience' to any judgment, decree, direction or other process of a Court or criminal breach of undertaking given to a Court. Contempt of Courts Act did not provide any definition of the word 'Court', but it defines High Court under sub-s. 2(d) of the said Act which means 'the High Court for a State or a Union Territory, any includes the Court or the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory'.
6. Article 226 of the Constitution provides that 'notwithstanding anything in Art. 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within these territories' directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus," prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose'.
7. The Constitution of India did not provide any machinery or procedure for enforcing the orders passed by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The contempt proceeding is the only procedure by which the order and/or judgment passed by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced. In case an order issued by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights is flouted by the respondents; or in other words if the authorities take away the fundamental rights of a citizen and make him suffer under an administrative order or statutory order and the High Court passed an order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by issuance of mandamus or other order, directions or writs, can it be said that the said judgment could not be executed or enforced after the expiry of one year from the date of violation of the said order and/or disobedience of the said order? In this connection, it may be mentioned that a decree passed by the Civil Court can be executed even after several years and the period of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act is not one year but twelve years.
8. In Ferry's Extra-Ordinary Legal Remedies at Paragraph 225 it has been stated that 'a contempt order itself may however be of a dual character. As to the fine, it is in vindication of the Court's authority, and is a punishment for contempt criminal or quasi-criminal; in respect of imprisonment, it is a remedy of a party to coerce obedience and is civil'.
9. The Supreme Court, in the case of Naruddin Mallick & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2207 of 1989, (an unrepor1ed Judgment) in SLP (C) No.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
