IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5155 of 2010

======================================================

1. Ajit Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mithilesh Kumar Singh, resident of village-

Mukundpur Bhath, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali

2. Narendra Singh, S/o Sri Rajeshwar Singh, resident of village-

Mukundpur Bhath, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali

3. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Late Devendra Prasad Singh, resident of

village- Mazlishpur, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali

4. Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of

village- Mazlishpur, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University through Dr. Raj

Deo Singh, Vice Chancellor, Muzaffarpur

2. Dr. Raj Deo Singh, the Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao

Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur

3. The State of Bihar through Sri K.K. Pathak, the Secretary, Higher

Education, Bihar, Patna

.... .... Opposite Parties

======================================================

Appearance:

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhola Prasad &

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates

For the State

: Mrs. Bandana Singh, AC to SC-25

For the B.R.A. University : Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN

C.A.V. ORDER

6

31.03.2014

The present application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioners praying for initiation of a contempt proceeding

against the Respondents for alleged non-compliance of the

order dated 13.04.2007 passed in CWJC No. 6519 of 2004,

which was disposed of with certain directions as enumerated

therein.

2. At the very outset itself, learned counsel for the

opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection, on the

basis of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 (hereinafter the „Contempt Act‟) that the contempt

Patna High Court MJC No.5155 of 2010 (6) dt.31-03-2014

2

petition is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. He

submits that such bar of limitation under the said provision is

absolute and inflexible, as it does not also permit condonation

of delay.

3. In response to the aforesaid objection, learned

counsel for the petitioners had sought time and thereafter filed

I.A. No. 8639 of 2013 for condoning the delay under Section 5

of the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter the “Limitation Act”) in

filing the contempt petition. It has also been submitted that

this Court would be well within jurisdiction in condoning such

delay.

4. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 20

of the Contempt Act are reproduced below : —

“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.”

5. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is

clear that the Court is precluded from initiating proceedings for

contempt beyond the limitation period of one year from the date

when the contempt is said to have been committed. The

provision in terms does not provide for any exceptions or

relaxations in that regard. It would thus appear that the

provision of Section 20 is mandatory and automatically

operates in the matter of civil contempt where a party

approaches the Court for initiation of contempt proceedings by

Patna High Court MJC No.5155 of 2010 (6) dt.31-03-2014

3

filing a petition alleging willful disobedience or violation of its

order beyond the prescribed period of one year.

6. It is relevant to advert to the backdrop in which

Section 20 of the Contempt Act itself came to be enacted. The

Sanyal Committee observed in its Report at paragraph-8 of

Chapter-X, in the context of the desirability of prescribing a

period of limitation through enactment, that if