Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) The present application for contempt has been filed for violation and non -compliance of the final order of this Court dated 27.05.2005, passed in Writ Petition No. 33424 of 2002. It appears from the record and the order impugned that applicants raised a grievance regarding grant of B. Tech. degree and for issuance of mark sheet. There was a dispute between the University authority, therefore, on that ground applicants filed a writ petition before this Court and ultimately this Court allowed the writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 27.05.2005 by passing the following directions : In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the remaining Petitioners having been issued mark sheets by the University are entitled to issuance of degree also. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The Respondent -University is directed to award degree to Petitioner Nos. 2, 5, 7 & 9. The Vice -Chancellor shall pass necessary orders in this regard to ensure compliance within a period of two months. No order as to costs.
(2.) Admittedly, this order was passed on 27.05.2005. According to applicants, the University preferred a defective special appeal bearing No. 801 of 2005; The Vice Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly v/s. Shiv Kumar and Ors. The said appeal was kept pending and in the year 2009, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and regular number was given as Special Appeal No. 1151 of 2009. Ultimately, this appeal was listed on 13.09.2010 and in the revised list as nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Now, this application for contempt has been filed with a request that order of this Court passed in 2005 has not been complied with and the ground taken by the applicants is that due to pendency of the special appeal before this Court against the judgment and order dated 27.05.2005, the contempt application could not be filed. As soon as the special appeal has been dismissed and in spite of that order, the order of this Court has not been complied with, this application for contempt is filed.
(3.) Sri Suneet Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act will not come into play in view of the fact that special appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.05.2005 was filed and it was kept pending and it has been dismissed by order dated 13.09.2010. Immediately after the dismissal of the appeal, when the order of this Court has not been complied, then this application is filed, therefore, it cannot be said and held that this application is time barred and cannot be entertained in view of Sec. 20 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon paragraphs 19, 20, 33 and 34 of the judgment of the apex court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2763; Pallav Sheth v/s. Custodian and Ors. The same are being reproduced below : In Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v/s. Kalu Ram : 1989 Supp (1) SCR 223 : AIR 1989 SC 2285 where an order of this Court ordering delivering of premises had not been complied with, an application was filed for initiation of contempt proceedings. A contempt was raised on behalf of the alleged contemner based on Sec. 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Dealing with this contention, this Court observed as follows : Another point was taken about limitation of this application under Sec. 20 of the Act. Sec. 20 states that 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. In this case, the present application was filed on / or about 3rd Nov., 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt considered, inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Sr. Sub -Judge, Narnaul dated 12th Feb., 1988. Therefore, the application was well within the period of one year. Failure to give possession if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application of S. 20 of the Act. 20. The abovementioned observations indicate that the contention based on Sec. 20 was not accepted for two reasons firstly that the application for initiating action for contempt was filed within one year of the date when the contempt was alleged to have been committed and secondly failure to give possession amounted to continuing wrong and, therefore, there was no scope for application of Sec. 20 of the Act. This case is important for the reason that the Court regarded the filing of the application for initiating contempt proceedings as the relevant date from the point of view of limitation. 33. The question which squarely arises is as to what is the meaning to be given to the expression "no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt...." occurring in Sec. 20 of the 1971 Act. Sec. 20 deals not only with criminal contempt but also with civil contempt. It applies not only to the contempt committed in the face of the High Court or the Supreme Court but would also be applicable in the case of contempt of the subordinate Court. The procedure which is to be followed in each of these cases is different. 34. As we have already noted, in the Bill which was presented to the Parliament after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Sanyal Committee there was no provision similar to Sec. 20 of the 1971 Act. It is only the Joint Parliamentary Committee which recommended the insertion of Clause 20 so as to provide for a period of limitation. There can be little doubt that Sec. 20, as framed, is not happily worded. The heading of the section, however, indicates what it was to provide for "Limitation for actions for contempt." The wording of the Sec. are negative but it is clear that terminus ad quem is the initiation of proceedings for contempt. The question that arises as to how or when are the proceedings for contempt initiated.;