ORDER :

Prayer : Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for having defied the order of this Court, dated 03.04.2018 made in W.P. No. 3220 of 2018.

The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondent for their wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 03.04.2018, in W.P. No. 3220 of 2018.

2. This Court passed an order as follows :

“4. Under these circumstances, the third respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioners on 15.12.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petitioners are directed to enclose copies of the representations and all relevant documents, if any, along with the order passed in this writ petition.

6. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

3. The copy of the order was made ready by the High Court Registry on 26.04.2018 and delivered on the same day. However, the petitioner slept over the matter and moved the present contempt petition after a lapse of four years, from the date of passing of the order. Thus, the contempt petition is hit by limitation.

4. This Court has decided the maintainability of the contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year without any valid reason. Under these circumstances, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation and this Court passed an order in Contempt Petition No.2539 of 2014 dated 05.12.2017 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :

“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 co