P L JAUHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the learned counsel for the respondents have been successful in raising a preliminary objection against the maintainability of these proceedings on the grounds of limitation, it will be sufficient to state those facts which bear on it.

(2.) DR. P. L. Jauhar, the present petitioner, filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 946 of 1969 to challenge the appointment of DR. Brij Mohan Sharma, respondent No. 5, as Deputy Director Medical (E. S. I.), by order Ex. 1 dated March 7, 1969, when that post fell vacant on the retirement of DR. D. N. Rai. That petition was allowed by a judgment of this Court dated January 29, 1971, and it was directed as follws - "it will thus appear that the impugned order Ex. 1 dated March 7, 1969 is quite illegal, and it is set aside with the direction that the post of Deputy Director in question should be filled up by the State Government according to the law. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from respondent No. 1. " The State Government did not, however, revert DR. Brij Mohan Sharma and did not care to fill the post of Deputy Director according to the law. The petitioner therefore filed the present petition on December 20, 1973, praying that the respondents may be suitably punished for disobedience of the aforesaid directions dated January 29, 1971. The petition was admitted, and rule was issued to the respondents requiring them to appear in this court and answer the allegation. They filed their replies in which they took the plea inter alia, that it was not Permissible for this Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt after the expiry of the period of one year specified in sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereafter referred to as "the Act". The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a rejoinder, as also an application under sec 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of the delay. The preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents therefore relates to the bar of limitation, and it is necessary to decide the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the respondents.

(3.) REFERENCE may also be made to the decision in Khondkar Mahomed Saleh vs. Chandra Kumar Mukerji (l2 ). It has been held in that case that statutes of limitation cannot be considered as anything else than matters relating to procedure, and ordinarily such statutes have their operation from the date fixed in the statute and govern all matters before the court after the commencement of the operation of the statute, but there is one exception and it is that where under the Act as amended the application could not be made, the amendment will not apply retrospectively, for the principle is that the effect of an amendment is to regulate and not to confiscate a vested right. Their Lordships therefore gave retrospective effect to the provision in the law of limitation because while it had the effect of cutting the period for making the application, it did not take away the right to do so. A similar view has been taken in pearey Lal vs. Solu Gir (13 ).