Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of Limitation under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1970 should be harmoniously read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The limitation under section 20 has to be scrupulously followed in all cases and those provisions are to be read harmoniously with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court was hearing a contempt application against the Director of the Local Fund Audit in Kuralagam Chennai alleging his failure to comply with an order of the Court dated 02.09.2014, passed in an earlier writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner based on the order of a Finance Department of the Madurai (West) Panchayat Union which stated that a bonus increment had to be sanctioned as an incentive in respect of employees who were in the special grade beyond 10 years. However, since the petitioner had retired from service before the completion of such period, she had become ineligible for availing such bonus which had led to her filing such writ petition.
The Court in such petition had directed the respondent to consider her representation against such order. After her representation was rejected, the petitioner filed the said contempt application after a lapse of about 1.5 years from the date of the order of the Court.
The contention before the High Court therefore pertained to the limitation to be followed for filing of contempt as decided by the Court in previous cases. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitions can be entertained beyond the period of limitation under Article 215 of the Constitution. The general principle of law is that in the presence of a Special Act in respect of limitation, the Constitution has to be read harmoniously and cogently with the Special Act.
The Court referred to the case of Pallav Seth V. Custodian &Ors. [(2001)7SCC 549] where it was held that section 20 neither stifles not abrogate the power bestowed upon the Apex Court under Article 215 of the Constitution. The Special law would override and take precedence over the general law. Hence Article 215 has to be read in consonance with Section 20 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that contempt applications can be entertained beyond one year in case of exceptional circumstances, in order to prevent situations where gross injustice would occur and even then, such power needed to be sparingly exercised.
After discussing the above principles, in the instant case, Justice S.M Subramaniam rejected the petitioner's plea: The writ petitioner was found not eligible for the claim set out in her representation and further, this Court has no hesitation in coming into the conclusion that the respondent had not committed any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.
Therefore, the contempt application was dismissed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824