The court dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-implementation of a prior order regarding air quality tests, holding that the case is barred by the limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt Case dismissed as barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CONTEMPT CASE NO.287 OF 2011
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
This Contempt Case is filed against the order dated 27.01.2010 in W.P.No.944 of 2010, wherein this Court directed the second respondent-Pollution Control Board to carry out ambient air quality tests at both the premises of each of the rice mills and also in the residential areas in the vicinity of the rice mills and submit a report. Alleging that the said order is not implemented, the present Contempt Case is filed.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are convinced that the Contempt Case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court finds force in the submission. The provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and other s [1] , wherein it
was held as under.
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.
Following the same, the Contempt Case is dismissed as
barred by limitation.
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
(B.N.RAO NALLA, J)
21st October 2011 RRB
[1] (2001) 7 SCC 549 = AIR 2001 SC 2763
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present Contempt Case is barred by limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The proper construction of the one-year limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and othersExplained¶5
(2001) 7 SCC 549 = AIR 2001 SC 2763 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.V.S. Rao
B.N. Rao Nalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
