Judgment:
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) The short question that requires consideration in this revision petition is whether a reference can be made by the subordinate court of Addl. Rent Controller to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
(2) The petitioner applicant moved a contempt petition before the subordinate court on ll-2-1988 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent for initiation of contempt proceedings on the ground that the respondents had willfully disobeyed the orders of this court and taken possession of the premises in dispute on 16th August, 1987 in execution proceedings in violation of the slay of the execution proceedings ordered by the then Rent Controller on 25th April, 1964 dand 1st June. 1964 It appears the Additional Rent Controller issued notice of this application to the alleged contemners on 16th February, 1988 and consequently a reply on behalf of the alleged contemners was filed. One of the objections taken in the reply was that the reference of the contempt proceedings cannot be made to the High Court as the proceedings can be initiated only within one year from the date of the alleged commission of the contempt. The Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 2-9-1989 upheld the contention of the respondents and held that no reference can be made to the High Court as the reference can be made only within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged contempt and thereforee it would be fruitless to make any further enquiry on the contempt application Against this order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 2-9-1989 the petitioner has come to this court by way of present revision petition.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ansari, submitted that there is material irregularity in the exercise jurisdiction by the Rent Controller inasmuch as he declined to make a reference to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to him, the alleged offence admittedly was committed on 16th August, 1987 and notice of contempt petition was ordered to be issued to the alleged contemner on 16th February, 1988 and the amounts to application of mind by the Rent Controller and initiation of contempt proceedings within one year under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as Section 20 refers to initiation of contempt proceedings by any court, including the High Court. It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr, Ansari. Having regard to the scheme and intention of the various provisions of she Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it is clear that Section 20 refers to the initiation of contempt proceedings by the High Court and not by the Subordinate Court of which contempt is alleged to have been committed- Simply because the subordinate court is moved by the aggrieved party and the subordinate court holds inquiry for the purpose of making a reference to the High Court, it cannot be said that the subordinate court has initiated proceedings for contempt. The proceedings for contempt con be said to be initiated only after the High Court decides to take action against the contemner and initiates the proceedings by issuing notice to the contemner to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against him. The proceedings will be deemed to be initiated only when the High Court passes an order calling upon the contemner to show cause and not till then. Since in the present case. at the time when the matter came up for consideration before the Additional Rent Controller the period of one year had already expired from the date when the alleged contempt was committed, obviously the Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to make a reference to the High Court and was justified in observing that it would be fruitless to make any further enquiry on the contempt application as period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt had already expired
(4) It was next contended by counsel for the petitioner that the contempt petition was instituted on 11th February. 1988 ie., well within one year from the date of commission of the alleged contempt proceedings, theiefore, can be very well initiated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents. I Am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well.
(5) At the cost of repletion it may be re-stated that the alleged contempt admittedly was committed on 16-8-1987 and on 2-9-1989 when the matter was considered by the Additional Rent Controller whether or not reference should be made to the High Court for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the period of one year had already expired long back from date of commission of the alleged contempt. The institution of proceedings and initiation proceedings are entirely on different footing. It is only after the institution of the proceedings when the High Court applies its mind and passes some order which a period of one year from the date of the commission of the alleged contempt, the proceedings can be considered to have been initiated and not otherwise. In Kishan Singh v. Honourable Mr. T. Anjaiah. Chief Minister and others 1985 Crl. L J. 1428 the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has 073 observed :
'That the word 'initiation' of contempt proceedings as stated in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has definite connotation and cannot be equated with the mere presentation of the petitioner. It was observed: 'initiation of the contempt proceeding is the time when the Court applies its mind to the illegal ions in the petition and decides to direct, under Section 17 the alleged contemner to show cause why he should not be punished.' '
(6) In the present case, the matter has not even been referred to the High Court and the Subordinate Court was holding an enquiry into the matter whether or not reference should be made. In this process, period of one year had already expired from the date on which the contempt was alleged to have been committed and as such no reference could have been made by the Addl Rent Controller to the High Court. As such the reference would be barred by time under Section 20 of the the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971.
(7) I am also fortified in taking this view by cases of Hari Nandan Aggarwal and another v S.N. Pandita and others : AIR1975All48 ; Purushotam Das Goel v. Hon'ble Mr Justice B S. Dhillon and other 1978 Crl. L.I. 772 and Dineshbhai A Parikh v Kripalu Cooperative Housing Society, Nagarvel, Ahmedabad and others : AIR1980Guj194 .
(8) In the light of the discussion above, I find no merit in the revision petition which is dismissed. No costs.