IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.369 of 2011 Nikhil Bharti Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 4 05.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned Government Advocate No.1 appearing for the State. This application has been filed for initiating contempt of Court proceeding for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 14.09.2009 contained in memo dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai (hereinafter referred as the ‘Appellate Authority’). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed on 22nd September, 2009 with a direction to the opposite party no. 2 to hold meeting of the Employment Committee and consider the selection process afresh, thereupon, inform/communicate the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks. The opposite party no.2, having failed to carry on the aforesaid order, has committed the contempt of Court since the aforesaid Appellate Authority is a Court sub-ordinate to the High Court. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the proceedings of contempt be initiated in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned Government Advocate No.1 appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that firstly the aforesaid Appellate Authority is not a Court for the purpose of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act and secondly the contempt application for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 14.09.2009 has been filed after a long delay i.e. on 21st of January, 2011 whereas the alleged contempt was committed on expiry of three weeks time allowed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the contempt application is hit by the provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the above, there is no foundational facts in order to support that there is any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order, and as such, no contempt is made out. Mr. Tekriwal, further submits that no contempt would lie for the alleged non-compliance of the order of the Appellate Authority. However, it is open for the aggrieved person to ventilate his legal grievances, if any, before appropriate forum as per law, but no contempt would lie. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the period of one years as prescribed under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act would commence from the date the Court decides to initiate the proceeding of contempt, and as such, the contempt application filed by the petitioner is absolutely legal and valid and not barred by limitation. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in case Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. B.K.Mittal & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 9136. Considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority is dated 14.09.2009 allowing three weeks’ time to the opposite party no.2 to comply the order. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act mandates that no Court shall initiate any proceeding for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. It was the submission of the petitioner that contempt has been committed on expiry of the period of three weeks’ time allowed by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 14.09.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act would commence from the date of the alleged contempt i.e. three weeks after the said date. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner also observes that all the exercises for initiating the contempt proceedings has to be taken within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. As such, in my opinion, this application having been filed after expiry of the aforesaid period of one year as prescribed under Section 20 of the Act. Besides the question of limitation, the aforesaid Appellate Authority, even though established under the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules, 2006, cannot be held to be a Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in absence of fundamental facts to support that such authority is a Court. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this contempt application and as such the same is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)