Laxman T. Vs. Som Nath Pandey, General Manager, Ner and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
contempt of court - period of limitation - section 20 of contempt of courts act, 1971 - proceedings for contempt of court cannot be initiated after expiry of one year from the date of commission of contempt - contempt proceedings are between the court and the person committing it and a third party cannot ask the court to begin proceedings - held, refusal by central administrative tribunal correct and no interference called for by the court. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 4. section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 clearly prohibits courts from initiating any proceedings for contempt, either of its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 3 has clearly found that on the relevant date, one year from the date of the commission of alleged contempt had elapsed.d. s. sinha and dev kant trivcdi, jj.1. heard sri narendra kumar. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri laljl sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.2. by the impugned order dated december 9. 1996, a copy whereof is annexure-3 to the writ petition. central administrative tribunal, allahabad bench, allahabad, the respondent no, 3, has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt in view of section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971.3. it cannot be gainsaid that initiation of proceedings of contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemner. no one can insist upon the court to initiate proceedings for contempt against the alleged contemner. thus, the insistence on the part of the petitioner for initiation of proceedings for contempt against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by the respondent no. 3 is misplaced.4. section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 clearly prohibits courts from initiating any proceedings for contempt, either of its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. the respondent no. 3 has clearly found that on the relevant date, one year from the date of the commission of alleged contempt had elapsed.5. thus, in the opinion of the court, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. the petition lacks merits. it is dismissed summarily.