GHASITA SINGH Vs. HARIYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(2.) THIS petition has been moved under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with the prayer that the proceedings for punishing the respondents for having committed civil contempt be initiated. The applicant presented the petition on 27th of April, 1983 and on that date it was directed that it may be listed with the record of Writ Petition No. 7016 of 1982. The period during which the contempt proceedings could be initiate as provided under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act has already expired on 24th of January, 1984 but no proceedings have been initiated against the respondents so far. As observed above, the period of limitation during which such proceedings could be initiated has already expired on 24.1.84. The petitioner may not be wholly responsible for the situation under which the proceedings could not be initiated within the period laid down under 'Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but it so appears that he did not press on 27th of April, 1983 that the petition be heard and the proceedings be initiated on that very date. The record shows that either on his request or on the desire of the Court it was directed to be listed alongwith the writ petition no. 7016 of 1982 and thereafter it could not be taken up for initiation of the proceedings within the prescribed period. The petitioner as is clear from the order-sheet, was not keen that the matter be taken up at an early date. He requested for time to file supplementary affidavit on a number of dates but no supplementary affidavit has been filed so far. In Gulab Singh v. Principal, Sri Ramji Das, 1975 AWC 294, the petitioner was not at all responsible for the delay in the initiation of the proceedings by the Court. That case was on a better footing than the conduct of the petitioner in this case, even then a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings after the expiry of the period laid down under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, though the petitioner had filed the petition well within time and was not at all responsible for the delay. A Full Bench of Punjab High Court in Manjeet Singh v. Darshan Singh, 1984 CrILJ 301, has disagreed and dissented with the view taken by this Court, The reasons given by the Punjab High Court with due respect do not persuade me to disagree with the view which has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court and I still hold that the view taken by this Court in Baradakanta Misra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrishna, C. J. of the Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2255 is the correct law on the subject. So following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, as observed above, I hold that the period during which the contempt proceedings may be . initiated has already expired on 24.1. 1984 and it is not possible now to initiate the proceedings.