- (1.) THIS is a bunch of a 15 appeals before us under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act (No. LXX of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). As common question of limitation under Section 20 of the Act is involved in all the appeals, we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common order.
(2.) WRIT petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed by the respondents. On the stay applications, ad-interim orders were passed by which, the respondents were required to deliver 65% stock of sugar held by them on the date of the commencement of the Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979. The price to be paid was Rs. 323/- per qnty. In spite of the intimation by the State Government, as envisaged by the interim orders, the respondents failed to deliver the sugar to the Government. Thereafter, the State of Rajasthan moved applications for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents under Section 12 of the Act. On these applications, the court ordered for issuance of notices to the contemners. The applications were filed within one year from the date of the commission of the contempt. It is, however, admitted that notices were ordered to be issued after the expiry of period of one year from the date of the commission of the contempt. The applications for amendment of the original applications for contempt were moved by the State Government. The amendment sought was to the effect that the applications may be treated as under Article 215 of the Constitution and in the alternative under ORDER XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. In some of the applications, the amendment was allowed whereas in some, the orders therein were not passed. The applications for taking action for contempt were disposed of assuming that they were not only under Section 12 of the Act, but were also the applications under Article 215 of the Constitution as well as under Order XXXIX, Rule 2a, C. P. C. The learned single Judge, by a common order dated Feb. 7, 1983, dismissed the applications holding that the proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed as aforesaid.
(3.) IT was contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge is erroneous as under Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Court, being a court of record has all the powers of such a Court, inclusive of the power to punish for contempt and, therefore, limitation provided under Section 20 of the Act cannot operate as a bar. In other words, it was submitted that the High Court has inherent powers to punish for its contempt. Learned Government Advocate further urged that Section 22 of the Act makes it clear that the Act merely codifies the existing law, relating to contempt of court in contempt matters and the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 215, can punish for the contempt. It was, thus, submitted that the applications for contempt have been wrongly dismissed on the ground of limitation. We proceed to examine this contention.;