Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Manju Daw vs Coal on 18 February, 2025
// 1 // CP/051/00016/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI
C.P.051/00016/2025
MA/051/00094/2025
[Arising out of O.A./051/00109/2018
Dated : 18.02.2025
CORAM
HON'LE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER (J)
1. Manju Devi Wife of Late basant Chandra Daw, resident of Central
Hospital Kalla Colony, Asansol, P.O. Kalla Central Hospital- & P.S.-
Asansol (North), District- Burdwan, Pin-713340.
and 13 others.
...............Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ratnesh Kumar)
Versus
Vikram Dev Dutt, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal,
Shashtri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, P.O. and P.S. New Delhi,
New Delhi
and others.
...............Respondents
(By Advocate: None)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER : KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [ADMN.]
1. The issue requiring our consideration is the terminus a quo for commencement of the point of limitation in matters of contempt, in the light of provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 129 & 215 of the Constitution of India and rule 2(h) of the CAT (Contempt of the Court Act) Rules, 1992. This would, in turn, require us to examine whether the contempt petition can be held to be maintainable on the ground of the respondents having continued to observe the order in the breach; in other words, whether there was a // 2 // CP/051/00016/2025 continuing wilful breach of the order passed by this tribunal dated 18th October, 2019, that stipulated compliance within a total of six months that expired on 18th April, 2020, amounting to civil contempt. This being a preliminary legal issue is proposed to be dealt with at the outset. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Tribunal's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the expression "date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed" as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, we ought to be wary of skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof.
2. Law is well-settled that the issue of limitation has to be considered with reference to the original cause of action. The period of limitation does not stand extended to the last of repeated representations made by a party, if filing of representation is not statutorily provided. Even this period is well outside the limitation.
3. The contempt petition is, however, entirely bereft of any pleading to the effect that the breach committed by the respondents is in the nature of a continuing wrong or breach or offence, so as to overcome the bar of limitation set by section 20 of the Act read with rule 2(h) of the CAT (Contempt of Court Act) Rules.
4. Needless to observe, hardly any other issue would survive for decision because this issue has been answered against the applicant.
// 3 // CP/051/00016/2025
5. This CP is severely barred by limitation of time as it has been filed after a long delay as per provision provided in the Act.
6. Hence, this CP is dismissed in limine.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
sks/-