THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CONTEMPT CASE NO.287 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This Contempt Case is filed against the order dated 27.01.2010 in W.P.No.944 of 2010, wherein this Court directed the second respondent-Pollution Control Board to carry out ambient air quality tests at both the premises of each of the rice mills and also in the residential areas in the vicinity of the rice mills and submit a report. Alleging that the said order is not implemented, the present Contempt Case is filed. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are convinced that the Contempt Case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court finds force in the submission. The provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others[1], wherein it was held as under. 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 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of 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. Following the same, the Contempt Case is dismissed as barred by limitation. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 21st October 2011 RRB [1] (2001) 7 SCC 549 = AIR 2001 SC 2763