IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 481 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35113/2008 Dated 23/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------- THE PROPER CHANNEL, S-33,GCDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.SREE KUMAR SHARMA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------- K.JAYAKUMAR, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont.Case.No. 481 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. Non-compliance of the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 23rd January, 2009 has led the petitioner to file this Contempt Case. 2. As already stated above, the judgment was rendered on 23rd January, 2009 and in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the proceedings now initiated is barred by limitation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no time limit is prescribed in the judgment for compliance of the direction, the limitation provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is inapplicable. 3. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. As indicated above, a Full Bench of this Court in Damodaran v. Cherkalam Abdulla (2007(2) KLT 171) has held that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should be initiated within one year from the date on which the contempt of court is alleged to have been Cont.Case.No.481/11 2 committed. Though no time limit is prescribed for compliance, the direction should have been complied with within a reasonable time. If there was non-compliance, at that stage the petitioner should have approached this Court. The fact that time limit is not prescribed does not mean that the law of limitation is inapplicable. The Contempt Case is only to be dismissed. The Contempt Case is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs