KRISHNA SWAMY Vs. M T KRISHNABABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri N Naveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE alleged non-compliance with the common order in WP Nos.13848 of 1999 and 16677 of 1999, dated 17.7.2007 is the subject of the present contempt case. In the said order, this Court directed the petitioner to give a fresh application to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad within a period of four weeks from then seeking to fix the compensation in accordance with law, on receipt of which the Corporation may negotiate with the petitioner and fix the compensation within a period of four weeks thereafter. Further consequential directions were also given for payment of the compensation, if arrived at on mutual agreement or initiation of land acquisition proceedings by the Corporation, in the event of failure to arrive at a consensus. The petitioner claims that notwithstanding the said directions, the Corporation did not act on the representations submitted by him since the orders. Though he gave an application as directed by this Court on 17.8.2007 itself, neither negotiations were initiated nor steps for acquiring the land were taken in spite of repeated representations so made. While narrating the sequence of events in detail, the petitioner desired the Commissioner of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Secretary of Municipal Administration Department, Government of A.P. to be punished for contempt.

(3.) WHILE the limitation thus ran throughout, Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, 2001 (5) ALD 51 (SC) = 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 464 (SC) = (2001) 7 SCC 549, was relied on by Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel, wherein after an exhaustive review of the case law on the subject, the Apex Court made it clear that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not stultify the powers under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution and therefore, like the other provisions of Contempt of Courts Act relating to the extent of punishment, which can be imposed, a reasonable period of limitation can also be provided. The Apex Court further stated that Section 20 applies both to criminal contempt and civil contempt and would also apply to the contempt committed in the face of the High Court or the Supreme Court or even a Subordinate Court. The initiation of the contempt proceedings was noted by the Apex Court with reference to the rules framed by all the Courts in India to be by the filing of an application or a petition in that behalf and if proceedings are not initiated by filing of an application within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, then the Court shall not have jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Supreme Court, therefore, was unambiguous that the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.