IMPORTANT POINT
The High Courts cannot invoke the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in all the cases by entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year, so as to dilute or eradicate the law prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. All contempt applications ought to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court on exceptional circumstances, on arriving a conclusion that a gross injustice to the society or the case is of public importance, then the inherent powers provided under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised without reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Alleging disobedience of the judgment made in W.P.(C)No.6694 of 2007 dated 15.3.2007, instant Contempt petition (F.No.51940 of 2019) is filed.

2. Material on record discloses that the Registry has raised a doubt as regards limitation. For brevity, note of the Registry is extracted hereunder:

“This Contempt of Court Case is filed by a Party in Person. Certain defects have been noted in this file. As per defect No.2, the Party in Person was requested to clarify why R3 and R4, who were not a party in the Writ Petition, are arrayed in the Cause title. As per Defect No.11, it was also requested to clarify as to whether the Contempt Case is time barred in view of the fact that the Writ Petition was disposed on 12.06.2007. All other defects have been cured.

To query No.2, the Party in Person has answered that R3 and R4 wilfully not complied with directions in WP(C) 6694/2007. SDM has passed order to Dy.SP, Alathur to strictly comply the orders of Honourable High Court. But the Order passed by SDM on 29.08.2019 has not been complied with by R3 and R4. So, R3 and R4 are made party in this case. To defect No.11, it is answered that the last orders issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 29.08.2019 on the strength of Judgment, directed the DYSP to strictly comply with the Orders. R3 and R4 not complied with the above. So, there is no other option than to approach this Hon'ble Court for Contempt of Court Proceedings.

It is submitted that as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, limitation period for initiation of Contempt proceedings is one year from the date on which the Contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

3. Contending inter alia that there is no delay in filing the Contempt petition, petitioner has re-submitted the Contempt Case (F.No.51940 of 2019). Recording the reasons assigned by the contempt petitioner, Registry has placed the papers before us for appropriate orders.

4. Party in person Sri.G.P.Dinesh Kumar made submissions that the Contempt petition is filed within time and not barred by limitation.

5. We have heard the party in person.

6. W.P.(C)No.6694 of 2007 has been disposed of on 15.3.2007. As per the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, limitation period for initiation of Contempt proceedings is one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. On the query raised by the Registry, Contempt petitioner has contended that there is no delay in filing the Contempt petition, as the authorities including Lok Ayukta and Sub Divisional Magistrate have passed orders on 26.4.2019 stating that police protection order of the Honourable High Court is still alive.

7. Material on record further discloses that when the petitioner (party in person) approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta for interim direction directing respondents therein to comply with the order of the High Court of Kerala without any delay, vide order dated 14.2.2017, Kerala Lok Ayukta has closed the I.A.No.674 of 2017 in Complaint No.1130 of 2016. For brevity, order dated 14.2.2017 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta is reproduced:

“ORDER

The direction sought for by the complainant is a direction to the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent, in this Complaint to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. We are of the view that if the complainant has grievance, remedy is available to him. Such remedy lies before the Hon'ble High Court. Giving of that remedy, we close this I.A. without entering any finding regarding merits.”

8. Though by order dated 14.2.2017 in I.A.No.674 of 2017 in Complaint No.1130 of 2016, Kerala Lok Ayukta has observed that such remedy lies before the High Court, we are of the view that the remedy is subject to law of limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

9. Material on record further discloses that when W.P.(C)No.15767 of 2017 was filed, for a mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to ensure protection to the petitioner as directed by this court