ORDER
H.K.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. Aleng Vashum, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asok Postsangbam, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Suresh as well as Mr. Jagjit, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this court for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondents alleging wilful disobedience of the court’s order dated 1.12.2000 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1143 of 2000 by which this court directed the respondents to release the sanctioned amount within a period of two months from the date of passing of that order. The petitioner, complaining that court’s order has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents, after serving legal notice, has come to this court for taking up contempt proceedings.
3. Court order dated 1.12.2000 was to be complied within 2 (two) months from the date of order. Thus, cause of action for contempt accused on expiry of the period of two months from 1.12.2000. Period of Limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings as provided under Section 2U of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is within one year from the date on which contempt was committed. Thus, the contempt proceeding may only be initiated within 1(one) year, i.e., from 2.2.2001. In the present case, this contempt application has been filed on 18.9.2002 and thus it is clearly barred by time.
4. Mr. Vashum has submitted that the petitioner did not come to this court earlier for the reason that the validity period of the sanctioned amount to be released to the petitioner got extended subsequently by the authority concerned and as such the petitioner did not approach this Court early. This is a separate matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 creates as statutory bar upon the court for initiating any proceeding for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. This matter has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Sheth, Appellant v. Custodian and Ors., Respondent reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549. The Apex Court after considering many earlier decisions of the court including the decision of the court of appeal, held that no cognizance may be taken for initiation of contempt proceeding after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Apex Court at para 44 of the Pallav Sheth’s case (supra) held :
“44. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court’s own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice. In other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”
5. Mr. Vashum has submitted that the amount which has been allocated earmarked for the petitioner may get lapsed. For which, the petitioner is well advised to take any remedial action under the law.
6. This Contempt petition stands closed.