IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1040 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.789/1988 Dated 21/03/1991 .................... PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: --------------------------- REVENUE DEPARTMENT STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (REGN NO.80/2009), REGD OFFICE, KIZHAKKE PULLATTU, ARPPOOKKARA EAST P.O. KOTTAYAM-686008,REP.BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT, KARUNANIDHI S/O.LATE M.KRISHNAN,AGED 44 YEARS, S.K.BHAVAN, VENKULAM, EDAVA P.O., TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WA: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MRS. NEELA GANGADHARAN,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), HIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MRS.K.B.VALSALAKUMARI,(AGE AND FATHER'S HUSABAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1040 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This Contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in WA No.789 of 1988 dated 21.03.90. When questioned as to the inordinate delay in filing the Contempt Case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as it is a continuing cause of action, there is no question of limitation. 2. In our view, as more than 18 years have been lapsed from the date of the order of this Court, the cause of action does not survive for the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that even if it is a continuing cause of action as the complainant/petitioner has not raised his little finger for the alleged non-compliance for the last more than 18 years, the Contempt Petition should not be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. So far as Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is concerned, it reads as follows: CCC No.1040 of 2009 -:2:- “20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” Considering the provision and intendment of the said Section and the decision taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Damodaran v. Cherkalam Abdulla [2007(2) KLT 171], basically this Contempt Petition is barred by limitation. Even accepting the contention of the petitioner that it is a continuing process, then also the same is hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the petitioner has not raised his little finger for the last more than 18 years. Hence on either count we do not find any good ground to continue the contempt process. Accordingly the Contempt Petition is dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, ttb/vku Judge.