Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
P. Rajan - Petitioner
Versus
Poongothai, Joint Director Of Health Services, Dindigul – Respondent
Cont P.(MD.) No.SR11505 Of 2020
Decided On : 16-02-2023
Contempt of Court - Limitation - Article 215 of the Constitution, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act - The court analyzed the issue of maintainability of a contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt. The court held that the filing of a contempt petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt is maintainable in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, and the decision of the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth – Vs –Custodian & Ors. (2001 (7) SCC 549). The court emphasized that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215. The court also held that the mere delay in filing a petition, which would be termed to be barred under Section 20 of the Act, alone cannot be the basis to reject the case of the aggrieved party. The court further directed the Registry to number the contempt petition and list the same for hearing, emphasizing that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 should be read harmoniously by the Court and cannot go along with Article 215 as it would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance of the court's order. The Registry raised the issue of maintainability citing Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which prescribes a limitation period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt. The petitioner argued that the contempt petition is maintainable beyond the period of one year under Article 215 of the Constitution, in the interest of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contempt petition is maintainable beyond the period of one year in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, and the decision of the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth – Vs –Custodian & Ors. (2001 (7) SCC 549). The court emphasized that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215. The court also held that the mere delay in filing a petition, which would be termed to be barred under Section 20 of the Act, alone cannot be the basis to reject the case of the aggrieved party. The court further directed the Registry to number the contempt petition and list the same for hearing, emphasizing that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 should be read harmoniously by the Court and cannot go along with Article 215 as it would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the contempt petition filed beyond the period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt, citing Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contempt petition is maintainable beyond the period of one year in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, and the decision of the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth – Vs –Custodian & Ors. (2001 (7) SCC 549). The court emphasized that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215. The court also held that the mere delay in filing a petition, which would be termed to be barred under Section 20 of the Act, alone cannot be the basis to reject the case of the aggrieved party. The court further directed the Registry to number the contempt petition and list the same for hearing, emphasizing that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 should be read harmoniously by the Court and cannot go along with Article 215 as it would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to number the contempt petition and list the same for hearing, emphasizing that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 should be read harmoniously by the Court and cannot go along with Article 215 as it would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.
ORDER :
(Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to summon 2nd respondent in the above writ petition and punish him for his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in WP(MD)No. 9842 of 2018 dated 27.04.2018.)
(Prayer in WP(MD). 9842/ 2018 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 4th Respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.1251/Ni2/2014 dated 22.03.2017 quash the same and further direct the 1 and 2 respondents to re-fix petitioner s pension and retirement benefits and to send proposal to the 3rd respondent as per revised scale of pay in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 22.07.2013 and grant the retirement benefits and pension.)
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.S.SARVAGAN PRABHU, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-
The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 27.4.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.9842 of 2018.
2. This Court, vide the aforesaid order, had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent to take note of the observations made in the order culled out from the original service register, verify the relevant proceedings and fix the proper Grade Pay to the petitioner and complete the process within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the petition has been presented before the Registry, which has been returned to the petitioner with the following query :-
4. Giving the following reply, the petition has been represented on behalf of the petitioner :-
Pallav Sheth (vs) Custodian and Others” judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.08.2001 (Civil) Appeal 2106 & 2107/2001. Complied with and represented.”
5. However, not being satisfied with the aforesaid reply, Registry, still entertaining a doubt, has listed this petition before this Court “for maintainability” today.
6. While the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contempt petition is maintainable in view of Article 215 of the Constitution and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth – Vs –Custodian & Ors. (2001 (7) SCC 549), Registry has refrained to number the petition on the question of limitation in view of the orders passed by this Court to the effect that the limitation provided u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act (for short ‘the Act’) would act as a bar for this Court to entertain a contempt beyond the statutorily prescribed period of one year of the alleged commission of contempt and that a harmonious construction of Section 20 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution would render the contempt as having been hit by limitation.
7. In the light of the countering stand taken by the learned counsel on either side and also keeping in mind the decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side, this Court, in the interest of justice, would go on to find out whether the limitation of one year prescribed u/s 20 of the Act would, indeed, be a bar for this Court to entertain any contempt petition, which has been filed beyond a period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt.
8. This Court is oblivious of the precedents placed before this Court and also the judicial decorum
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be scrupulously followed, and the powers under Article 215 of t....
Any contempt proceedings initiated must comply with the one-year limitation period stipulated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, barring exceptional circumstances.
The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers onl....
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that contempt proceedings are subject to strict limitation periods, and the concept of a continuing wrong does not apply to single acts of non-compliance with court order....
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
