Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010255302024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/659/2024 MD SOURHAB ALI S/O MD SIRAJUL HAQUE, R/O VILLAGE NO 2 THEKARABARI, P.O. BALABARI, DISTRICT DARRANG , ASSAM, PIN 784115 VERSUS SMT POMI BARUAH, ACS THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS K TAYE,MS. M KHATUN,MR. T K BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DAS , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04.06.2025 Heard Shri A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in WP(C)/101/2016. Page No.# 2/4 3. This Court had issued notice on 09.12.2024 and on the subsequent date i.e. 07.04.2025, Shri Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent, raised an objection on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, it was observed that the issue would be heard on the next date. 4. On the next date i.e. 14.05.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, on the point of limitation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were representations as well as communications by which an assurance was given that the order in question would be complied with. Therefore, it was submitted that the issue of limitation would not arise. 6. On the other hand, Shri Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present case, being one for penal action alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, must strictly comply with the mandate of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act of 1971) particularly with regard to limitation. 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 8. The Act of 1971, which governs actions against willful and deliberate violation of the Courts order or any act done which can be construed as an obstruction in the dispensation of justice are made punishable. Under Section 20 of the said Act, the limitation has been prescribed which is of one year. For ready reference, Section 20 is extracted hereinbelow- “20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its Page No.# 3/4 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.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent communications would extend the period of limitation. 10. To appreciate the issue in hand, the observation made by this Court in the order dated 15.09.2017 in the connected WP(C)/101/2016 may be extracted hereinbelow- “6. In view of above, the petitioner may file representation before the DHE for sanctioning of additional posts in the Kharupetia College. If such represent action is supported by the College GB, the DHE may take appropriate decision on sanctioning of posts, as per norms. However it is made clear that the posts should be filled through due process. It is ordered accordingly.” 11. As per the said direction, the petitioner was given liberty to file representation before the DHE for sanction additional posts in the College in question and if such representation is supported by the College GB, the DHE may take appropriate decision on sanctioning of post as per norms. The said direction was, however, with a caveat that the post should be filled up through due process. 12. It appears that such application was made by the petitioner to the DHE on 15.12.2017 which also appears to be forwarded by the Principal of the College. However, the first communication from the Higher Education Department to the DHE is dated 01.03.2019, which is much after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. In fact, the present petition has been filed on 28.11.2024. Page No.# 4/4 13. Since, the limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is clearly prescribed and in the absence of any other compelling grounds to invoke this Court’s power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, entertaining a petition of this nature after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 14. The petition accordingly stands dismissed on the grounds of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant