- (1.) D. S. Sinha and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Lalji Sinha, the learned counsel ap pearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 9th December, 1996, a copy whereof is Annexure No. 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 Con tempt of Courts Act, 1971. It cannot be gainsaid that initiation of proceedings of contgempt 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 insis tence on the part of the petitioner for initiation of proceedings for contempt against the respondents No. 1 and 2 by the respondent No. 3 is misplaced. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly prohibits Courts from initialing any proceedings for con tempt, either of its own motion of 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.
(3.) THUS, the opinion of the Court, the impugned order does not warrant any in terference 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 dis missed summarily. Petition dismissed. .;