THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.853 of 2009 Dated:12.11.2009 Between: K.B.Rajendran, And others. ….Petitioners And Sri Ramgopal, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.853 of 2009 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging contempt of the Court in relation to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16106 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007. By the said order, this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioners directing the second respondent to ensure that survey is conducted. As held by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v Custodian[1], the contempt case is barred by limitation as the contempt case is filed on 04.06.2009 whereas the order of this Court is dated 30.07.2007. The Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth (supra) has held that so as to be within limitation, a contempt case either must have been filed before one year or this Court must have taken cognizance of the case before the expiry of one year. It is appropriate to extract the following passage (paragraph 44 of AIR) from the judgment. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the court’s own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself, which must initiate by issuing a notice. In other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 (of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) must be that action must be initiated, either by filing an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The contempt case is therefore dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.11.2009 vs [1] AIR 2001 SC 2763 = (2001) 7 SCC 549