Koshy, J.

The preliminary point to be decided in this case is whether the proceedings for contempt is barred by limitation in view of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—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."

It is the contention of the respondent that the incident alleged to have occurred on 1-6-2001. The petition for contempt was filed on 4-10-2001 and defects were cured and re-presented only on 11-10-2001. Even though the petition was filed, no further action was done and only on 18-7-2005, Chief Justice ordered that the matter be posted and it was posted on 21-7-2005. Notice on admission was ordered. At the time of filing the petition, first respondent was a Minister, but, by the time notice was issued, he ceased to be a Minister and, therefore, correct address was ordered to be furnished. I.A.No.11998 of 2005 filed for the above purpose was allowed on 27-10-2005 and correct address was furnished. Thereafter, again, notice on admission was ordered. Notice on admission was issued on 28-10-2005. He filed counter. After considering the above, notice for appearance was issued only on 21-2-2006. It is the contention of the respondent that here initiation of proceedings started on 21-2-2006 as that is the time when court applied its mind and initiated proceedings. Earlier on 28-10-2005, notice on admission was issued and that is only a show cause notice. Even otherwise, since the incident was on 1-6-2001, four years have elapsed when notice on admission was issued against the respondent and the matter is barred by limitation under section 20 of the Act. It was also argued that section 20 of the Act is a mandatory provision and contempt action can be initiated by the Supreme Court and High Courts under articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India as contempt runs only within the period of one year mentioned in section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is true that contrary view expressed by the Full Bench of this Court in Mayilswami v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) K.L.T. 178 F.B.) that limitation prescribed under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not applicable when action is taken under article 129 or 215 of the Constitution of India is no more good law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and another (2000) 3 S.C.C. 171. The above dicta with regard to the application of section 20 was affirmed by the three member Bench decision of the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 S.C.C. 549, even though three member Bench had differed with the view in Om Prakash Jaiswal's case (supra), with regard to the question of starting point of limitation and the meaning of the word 'initiate' appearing in section 20 of the Act.

2. Here, admittedly, no action is taken under Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution of India, but, notice is issued on the basis of an application filed by an aggrieved party and the only disputed question is when proceedings are said to have been initiated for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation under section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel, when preliminary objection was filed, relied on the decision of the two member Bench decision in Om Prakash Jaiswal's case (supra) in support of the contention. During argument, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly pointed out the three member Bench decision in Pallav Sheth's case (supra). After considering the contentions and considering the word ‘initiate', Apex Court held that in a civil contempt, filing of an application by an aggrieved party and in the case of criminal contempt filing of an application through the Advocate General will be considered as `initiated'. The