The present contempt application is filed seeking implementation of the order passed by this Court on 17.04.2009 in W.P.No.6678 of 2009.

2. This Court has raised a preliminary issue in respect of the maintainability of the contempt application filed after a lapse of one year from the date of cause of action, as contemplated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is of the opinion that the petitioners were waiting for the implementation of the order by the respondent and since the order has not been implemented, he filed the contempt application in the year 2014.

4. This Court has to consider the basic fact in respect of the contempt application on hand. This Court has passed an order on 17.04.2009, directing the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners on 07.11.2007 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The copy of the order was issued in May, 2009 and the same was communicated to the respondents. However, the petitioners have not chosen to file the contempt application within a period of one year from the date of expiry of three months period from 17.04.2009. The three months period expires approximately in August 2009. However, the contempt application was filed on 15.07.2014 after a lapse of about 5 years from the date of passing of the order in W.P.No.6678 of 2009.

5. Thus, this Court has to examine the maintainability of the contempt application in relation to the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides 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.”

6. Thus, it is clear that a limitation is prescribed for filing a contempt application against an order passed by the Court and one year period is prescribed from the date of cause of action arose. In the case on hand, the cause of action arose in August 2009 and the contempt application was filed on 15.07.2014. Thus, there is a delay of about 5 years even in filing the present contempt application.

7. Next question to be considered in this regard is that, whether this Court can invoke Article 215 of Constitution of India for entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year.

8. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that High Courts to be Courts of record '' Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

9. Thus, the Constitution provides powers to the High Court to punish for contempt itself. No doubt, such a power is granted for the effective implementations of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. However, this Court has to consider, whether such a power can be exercised beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, and under what circumstances.

10. The general principle of law in this regard is that whenever there is a Special Act enacted in respect of limitation, the powers conferred under the Constitution as well as the Special Act to be read cogently and harmoniously. Harmonious reading of these provisions, no doubt, the High Courts are empowered to exercise the power of contempt as the High Court is the Court of record. However, such power can be exercised only with reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. This will not mean that, the High Courts cannot exercise the powers of contempt beyond the limitation period of one year. The powers of contempt beyond the limitation period can be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, and sparingly. The powers conferred under the Constitution in normal circumstances