G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.)THESE two contempt petitions have been filed in respect of the wilful disobedience' of the orders passed by this court on 29 -4 -81 and 14 -5 -81 in respect of the stay applications moved by the petitioners M/s Gulam Abbas Kamruddin in writ petition No. 528/81.
(2.)IN both the orders the substance and operative part of the order which is relevant for the purposes of contempt relates to the permission to remove the woond and charcoal by M/s Gulam Abbas Kamruddin on furnishing an undertaking to the respondents that in case the writ petition is dismissed, the amount so valued would be paid by him. For the valuation of the amount, it was directed that a representative of the respondents would be allowed to prepare an inventory mentioning the weight, quality, quantity and cost of them.
Whereas in the contempt petition filed by M/s Gulam Abbas Kamruddin it is alleged that the respondents -non -petitioners did not permit the renewal of the charcoal etc. even though an undertaking was produced, and passed orders in wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. The State of Rajasthan has come up with a counter allegation in Contempt Petition No. 69/83 alleging the M/s Gulam Abbas Kamaruddin removed the charcoal etc. without giving an appropriate undertaking according to the orders of this Court.

(3.)ALTHOUGH prolonged detailed arguments were made by the learned Counsel for the parties on two subsequent dates but in view of the preliminary objections raised in both the cases it would be necessary first to examine whether contempt petition can be entertained in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 20 reads as under :
20. Limitation for Section for contempt. No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on 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.