SABYASACHI MAHATO Vs. DIBYEN MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant contempt application has been filed by the writ petitioner drawing attention of this Court for alleged deliberate violation of the order passed on 25th Sept., 2007 on W.P. No. 23620(W) of 2005.

(2.) Upon perusing the contempt petition it appears that a photostat copy of the certified photostat copy of the order dated 25th Sept., 2007 was sought to be communicated to the office of the alleged contemnor/respondent by a letter dated 15th Oct., 2007 sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, by learned advocate for the petitioner. However, no acknowledgment due card has been annexed to the instant contempt petition to demonstrate effective service of the Court's order upon the alleged contemnor/respondent. The petitioner, however, has annexed a letter dated 9th March, 2009 addressed to the alleged contemnor/respondent, being the Director of School Education, Govt. of West Bengal wherein it has been alleged that the order passed by this Court on 25th Sept., 2007 has not been complied with by the said authority.

(3.) I am of the view that the petitioner has made a belated attempt to invoke the special jurisdiction of this Court by taking out the instant contempt application after almost two years from the date of passing of the order on 25th Sept., 2007. The action in contempt, if at all maintainable, ought to have been initiated by bringing the alleged violation to the Court's notice within a year from the date of communication of the order passed by this Court on 25th Sept., 2007. The limitation for actions for contempt has been clearly defined under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as follows: