AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI Vs. RAVI DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that requires consideration in this revision petition is whether a reference can be made by the subordinate court of Addl. Rent Controller to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

(2.) The petitioner applicant moved a contempt petition before the subordinate court on ll-2-1988 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent for initiation of contempt proceedings on the ground that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court and taken possession of the premises in dispute on 16th August, 1987 in execution proceedings in violation of the slay of the execution proceedings ordered by the then Rent Controller on 25th April, 1964 dand 1st June. 1964 It appears the Additional Rent Controller issued notice of this application to the alleged contemners on 16th February, 1988 and consequenrly a reply on behalf of the alleged contemners was filed. One of the objections taken in the reply was that the reference of the contempt proceedings cannot be made to the High Court as the proceedings can be initiated only within one year from the date of the allged commission of the contempt. The Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 2-9-1989 upheld the contention of the respondents and held that no reference can be made to the High Court as the reference can be made only within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged contempt and therefore it would be fruitless to make any further enquiry on the contempt application Against this order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 2-9-1989 the petitioner has come to this court by way of present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ansari, submitted that there is material irregularity in the exercise jurisdiction by the Rent Controller inasmuch as he declined to make a reference to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondets under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to him, the alleged offence admittedly was committed on 16th August, 1987 and notice of contempt petition was ordered to be issued to the alleged contemner on 16th February, 1988 and the amounts to application of mind by the Rent Controller and initiation of contempt proceedings within one year under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as Section 20 refers to initiation of contempt proceedings by any court, including the High Court. It is dfficult to accept the sumission of Mr, Ansari. Having regard to the scheme and intention of the various provisions of she Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it is clear that Section 20 refers to the initiation of contempt proceedings by the High Court and not by the Subordinate Court of which contempt is alleged to have been committed- Simply because the subordinate court is moved by the aggrieved party and the subordinate court holds inquiry for the purpose of making a reference to the High Court, it cannot be said that the subordinate court has initiated proceedings for contempt. The proceedings for contempt con be satd to be initiated only after the High Court decides to take action against the contemner and initiates the proceedings by issuing notice to the contemner to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against him. The proceedings will be deemed to be initiated only when the High Court passes an order calling upon the contemner to show cause and not till then. Since in the present case. at the time when the matter came up for consideration before the Additional Rent Controller the period of one year had already expired from the date when the alleged contempt was committed, obviously the Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to make a reference to the High Court and was justified in observing that it would be fruitless to make any further enquiry on the contempt application as period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt had already expired