MARGERETAMMA Vs. SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is filed by the widow of late G. Krupanandam, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for punishing the respondents for not having complied with the directions issued by this Court in WPMP No.18938 of 1989 in W.P.No.14310 of 89 dated 6-10-1989. Originally three respondents were impleaded and later by order dated 30-10-1992 in Contempt Application No. 429/92, the fourth respondent has been impleaded.

(2.) The petitioner contended that the order dated 6-10-1989 passed in WPMP No.18938 of 89 has not been implemented by paying the salary due to her deceased husband in the light of the judgment in W.P.No.4926 of 1986 dated 18-1-1989, which amounts to disobedience of the orders of this Court. The petitioner contended that by virtue of interim directions, she is entitled for payment of half of the salary which was payable to her husband during his life time. She got issued a registered notice dated 21-9-90. Though respondents 1 to 3 received that notice, as no payment was made and no reply was given to the said notice, the petitioner filed this petition on 5-10-1990.

(3.) The respondents have taken a preliminary objection on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the interim direction given by this court is still subsisting; that it affords a continuous cause of action to the petitioner and as such the question of limitation does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner, having referred to the decision of Ramaswamy,J (as he then was) reported in A. Ratnamanikyam vs. K.S.R. Sarma, submitted that that decision is no longer a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pritam Pal vs. High Court of M.P. which lays down that the power of tine Supreme Court and the High Court to punish for contempt is not restricted or trammelled by ordinary legislations. The learned counsel therefore argued that the power conferred upon the Supreme Court and High Court, being Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 of tine Constitution of India respectively having an inherent power, the jurisdiction vested under the said Act is a special one not derived from any of the Statute and therefore the Supreme Court or High Court in exercising that power under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India, cannot be fettered away with the prescription of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that the general power to punish for contempt conferred under the Act cannot over-ride the special power conferred under the specific provisions of the Constitution of India and in the absence of any restriction prescribed in Article 215 of tine Constitution of India imposing the limitation in exercising the power to punish for contempt of court, the exercise of power cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of limitation. He therefore, reiterated that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pritam Pal's case (supra), the decision in Ratnamanikyam's case (supra) is no longer a good law.