The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed Contempt Case No. 4290 of 2024, emphasizing that contempt petitions filed beyond the statutory limitation period of one year are not maintainable. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari delivered the judgment, reinforcing the legislative framework governing contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, B. Veeresh, sought to initiate contempt proceedings against G. Anantha Ramu, IAS, and three other respondents for alleged non-compliance with the High Court’s order dated November 4, 2022, in W.P. No. 23499 of 2022. The original order had directed the respondents to process and pay outstanding bills for work completed by the petitioner, along with provisions for claiming interest on delayed payments.
Despite partial compliance, the petitioner alleged willful disobedience of the remaining directions and filed the contempt case after a delay of 298 days from the one-year limitation period set by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal question revolved around whether the High Court could entertain a contempt petition filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing that the delay was justified.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, referring to precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764), held that the limitation period under Section 20 is absolute and cannot be extended.
Court’s Observations
Justice Tilhari cited the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 20, highlighting that:
“The express negative phraseology used in Section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Court’s power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein.”
The court emphasized that the limitation period begins from the date the contempt is alleged to have been committed, and no provisions under the Limitation Act, including Section 5, apply to extend this period. The judgment further noted:
“An action for contempt… is essentially in the nature of original proceedings… a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable.”
Decision
Concluding that the petitioner’s contempt application was time-barred, Justice Tilhari dismissed the case, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The dismissal serves as a reminder of the strict statutory limits governing contempt proceedings and the judiciary’s adherence to legislative intent.
The petitioner was represented by Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, while the respondents were represented by their respective counsel.
