The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed against educational authorities for alleged non-compliance of a 2013 court order, ruling that the petition was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The order was passed by Justice Shamim Ahmed in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1206 of 2025 filed by a physical education teacher who had earlier obtained relief in W.P.(MD) No.13965 of 2011 decided on July 25, 2013.
Background
The petitioner, a Physical Education Director (Grade I), had approached the High Court in 2011 seeking to quash an order dated 09.09.2010 and for directions to grant him incentive increments from 2006 onwards, based on G.O.Ms.No.324, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25.04.1995. The said writ petition was allowed on 25.07.2013, with the Court setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to sanction and pay incentive increments for the petitioner’s M.Phil. degree in Physical Education within eight weeks.
Arguments in the Contempt Petition
The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to implement the 2013 court order for over nine years and filed the present contempt petition on April 7, 2025. His counsel argued that such prolonged non-compliance amounted to wilful disobedience of the court’s directions.
However, the respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the petition, relying on the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shamim Ahmed held that the petition was not maintainable due to inordinate delay, observing:
“The present Contempt Petition has been filed in the year 2025 after a delay of around 9 years… Hence, the present Contempt Petition is a time barred one and at this belated stage, it cannot be sustained on the ground of laches.”
The Court noted that apart from postal receipts from April 2025, there was no evidence that the 2013 judgment had been served upon the respondents or that any follow-up action was taken in the interim. There was also no explanation offered for the delay, nor any claim that the delay was due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control.
Legal Reasoning
The Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (AIR 1998 SC 2276), where the apex court stated that limitation laws must be applied strictly even if they appear harsh.
- Pallav Sheth v. Custodian ((2001) 7 SCC 549), where it was held that proceedings must be initiated within one year of the alleged contempt.
Referring to the settled position of law, the Court reiterated:
“All contempt applications ought to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
While acknowledging that the Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution in exceptional circumstances involving public interest or gross injustice, the judge found no such circumstances in the present case.
Decision
Holding that the petition was barred by limitation and suffered from laches, the Court dismissed the contempt petition with the following concluding observation:
“The contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of course. A long and unexplained delay in approaching the Court can render the petition liable to dismissal on the ground of laches.”
The matter was accordingly closed with no order as to costs.
