STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BUDH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The above contempt applications raise a common question, so they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In the writ petitions filed by the Contemners, similar in term orders were passed by this court, where under the contemners were required to deliver sixty five per cant stock of sugar held by them on the date of commencement of Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979, on payment of of its price 323/- per quintal. Despite intimation by the State Government, as contemplated by the interim orders, the contemners failed to sell sugar to the Government, as ordered. The State has moved applications for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemners under sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On these applications, this court ordered issuance of notices to the contemners. Although the applications were filed within one year from the date of commission of contempt, but admittedly the notices were ordered to be issued after the expiry of period of one year from the date of commission of contempt. Faced with the question of limitation, applications for amendment of the original applications were moved by the State of Rajasthan, where by it was sought that the applications may be treated to be the applications under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India and in the alternative under Or. 39, Rule 2-A C, P. C. In some of the applications, the amendment has been allowed and in others the amendment has been objected to and orders thereon have not been passed. I am proceeding to dispose of these applications assuming that the applications are not only under Sec. 12 of the Act, but are also applications under Art. 215, as well as under Or. 39, Rule 2-A C. P. C.

(3.) On behalf of the State, Shri R. P. Dave learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that the applications may be treated within time in view of the fact that the applications were moved by the state within the period of one year and so the proceeding for contempt were initiated against the contemners by the State. For the purpose of limitation, under sec. 20 of the Act, it is not necessary that action has to be taken by the Court. It is enough that the person aggrieved may move the court for initiating proceedings for contempt.