Ajay Kumar Shrivastava vs Shri P.C.Baraskar Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 5338 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                  BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                           ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2022

                    REVIEW PETITION No. 146 of 2022

        Between:-
        AJAY      KUMAR      SHRIVASTAVA  S/O
        G.P.SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION: SERVICE AS DAILY WAGES
        EMPLOYEE SKILLED TIME KEEPER PUBLIC
        WORKS DEPARTMENT DISTRICT SHAHDOL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI K.K. AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      SHRI P.C.BARASKAR SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS
        DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      SHRI M.K. NAYAK CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC
        WORK DEPARTMENT (P.W.D.) ZONE, REWA
        DISTRICT- REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      SHRI   SANJEEV   KUMAR     KULHADE   THE
        EXECUTIVE, ENGINEER, (B AND R) DIVISION
        DISTRICT- SHAHDOL(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
        (NONE)

      This petition has come up for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Petitioner has filed this review petition for re-calling order dated 12.01.2022 passed in CONC No.2143/2021.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that this Court has not considered order passed by Division Bench reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 717. In view of same, order passed by this Court is contrary to judgment passed by Division Bench and therefore, order may be reviewed.

Heard the counsel for petitioner.

Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act is to be read along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. In extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, Court may on its discretion can entertain contempt petition under Article 215 of

Constitution of India beyond period of one year but in every case Court will not take it as a thumb rule that limitation provided under Section 20 is not applicable in contempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Limitation provided under Section 20 is guiding factor to be considered by Court while

considering petition of contempt. Though, there is no bar in entertaining petition beyond period of one year but Court has to consider exceptional circumstances when it can consider and entertain contempt petition beyond period of one year. As a thumb rule it cannot be said that Section 20 is not applicable in contempt petition filed under Article 215 of Constitution of India. Such a reasoning will make Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act otiose.

Supreme Court in case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 SCC 549 in paragraph No.32 has held as under:-

"32. .....A three-Judge Bench in Dr L.P.Misra's case (supra) observed that the procedure provided by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 had to be followed even in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution. It would, therefore, follow that if Section 20 is so interpreted that it does not stultify the powers under Article 129 or Article 215 then, like other provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act relating to the extent of punishment which can be imposed, a reasonable period of limitation can also be provided."

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 Section 20 of the 1971 Act. Section 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."

It is also held in I.L.R. 2021 MP 1732 {Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. Shri R.K. Mishra} as under:-

"4. Jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution shall not be exercised to make provision of Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 otiose nor Section 20 be interpreted strictly to render power under Article 215 of the Constitution nugatory. Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act is to be construed harmoniously and only in exceptional or blatant case of contempt High Court shall exercise power beyond period of one year limitation period. Section 20 does not bars jurisdiction of High Court to take cognizance of contempt but self imposed restriction to exercise jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution to entertain civil contempt.

5. Powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised keeping in view Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Limitation for filing contempt under Section 20 is of one year. In exceptional

circumstances, this Court can exercise its power for initiating contempt beyond period of one year. Petitioner is unable to show any exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances so that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 215 read with Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act to initiate proceedings even after limitation provided for filing of contempt petition case is over."

In view of aforesaid, there is no merit in review petition filed by petitioner and same is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2022.04.13 12:02:51 +05'30'