Sobhagmal Jain, J. - (1.) Both the non-petitioners have filed their reply to the contempt petition. Counsel for the non-petitioners have raised a preliminary objection that the present proceedings cannot continue in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as to 'Act'), as the same were not initiated within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have
(2.) The subject of contempt is the violation of this Court's order dated Dec. 4, 1985, which read as under: "The Government advocate wants 2 weeks time to file reply to the writ petition and stay application.In the meantime the Government shall not initiate penal action". As per the allegations made in the affidavit of Shri Balkishan dated Sept. 21, 1986, the penal act on by respondent No. 1 was commenced on 29.1.1986, by the lodging of F.I.R. The notice which was issued to the contemners by this Court on Sept. 29, 1986, was to the following effect: "Issue notice to the non-petitioners to show cause why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against them". A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly show that the contempt proceedings did not commence with this order but were to start only after cause was shown to the notice. The proceedings were in contemplation but were not yet initiated. Section 20 of the Act provides : "20. Limitation for actions 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." Now that a period of more than one year has passed since the date the contempt was alleged to have been committed, the present proceedings cannot be continued in view of the provisions of Section 2.0.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the decision of this Court in Megh Raj Tawad v. Kapur Chand Kulish, R.L.R. 1987(1) 205 has submitted that issuance of notice itself was sufficient to treat the same as initiated of the contempt proceedings. I am afraid, the said authority does not help the petitioner. The notice which was under consideration in Megh Raj Tawad's case was: "Issue notice to Kapoor Chand Kulish, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Keshargarh, Jaipur. "The language used in the order directing issuance of notice in Megh Raj Tawad's case is quite different from the one used in the present case in the order dated Sept. 29, 1986. In Megh Raj Tawad's case, also, the Division Bench had made the following observations: "It may be pointed out that the notice under Rule 324 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules was ordered to be issued to the contemner only after hearing counsel for the petitioner and it is evident that the learned Judges of the Division Bench did apply their mind before reaching to the conclusion that it was a fit case where notice should be issued to the non-petitioner contemner under Rule 324 of the High Court Rules. If it was the intention of the learned Judges to give show cause notice for Admission to the contemner then evidently the order should have been to show cause why the contempt petition should not be admitted by this Court. However, the order dated 10.1.1984 clearly says that notice be issued to the non-petitioner contemner.";