High Court
Legal Reasoning
1959.2024CP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 959 OF 2024INWRIT PETITION NO. 12627 OF 2022Kazi Education and Social Welfare SocietyThrough its Secretary,Md. Kalimoddin Md. MoinoddinAge:- 43 years, Occ : Secretary,Kadrabad Plot, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani...PETITIONER-VERSUS-1.Shri Vijay WaghmareAge : Major, Occu : Secretary,Department of Social Justice and SpecialAssistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.Shri. Vikas Chandra RastogiAge : Major, Occu : Secretary ofHigher and Technical EducationDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai...RESPONDENTS...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S. V. DeshmukhAGP for Respondent- State : Mr.A.M. Phule...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W.JOSHI, JJ.DATED : 28 NOVEMBER, 2024.JUDGMENT (PER R.W. JOSHI, J.) :.The present contempt petition is filed alleging willful anddeliberate non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed bythis Court in Writ Petition No. 12627 of 2022.2.The petitioner is a public trust, which is functioning in the
Decision
2959.2024CP.odtfield of education. The petitioner intended to start a college for studiesin social work, which would impart education to students for pursuingcourses of Bachelor of Social Work and Masters of Social Work. Thepetitioner had submitted an application for starting college to theDepartment of Social Justice and Special Assistance of theGovernment of Maharashtra in the month of April, 2022. The petitionersubmits that all the concerned authorities had given positiverecommendation for granting permission to the petitioner to start thecollege. However, the respondent in the writ petition did not decide theapplication as consequence of which the petitioner was constrained tofile a petition, being Writ Petition No. 12627/2022 seeking writ ofmandamus directing the respondent in the writ petition to take decisionon the proposal of the petitioner for starting the said college. The saidpetition came to be decided vide order dated 15.12.2022, wherebydirections were issued to the respondent – State to take appropriatedecision on the proposal submitted by the petitioner on or before31.01.2023.3.The petitioner contends that the respondent in the writpetition has not taken any decision in the matter, as directed by thisCourt vide order dated 15.12.2022. It will be pertinent to mention herethat initially, the State of Maharashtra was arrayed as respondent inthe contempt petition through the Secretary in the Department of 3959.2024CP.odtSocial Justice and Special Assistance. However, vide GovernmentResolution dated 29.02.2024, the subject, “Social Work Colleges(BSW/MSW courses)” has been transferred to the Department ofHigher and Technical Education. In view of the aforesaid, theSecretaries in the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistanceand Higher and Technical Education have been arrayed as respondentNos.1 and 2 respectively in the present contempt petition.4.As stated above, the present petition is filed in view ofnon-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court, inas much as, no decision is taken on the proposal of the petitioner on orbefore 31.01.2023 i.e. the time fixed by this Court for taking the saiddecision.5.The present contempt petition is filed on 14.10.2024. Thecause of action for filing the present contempt petition arose on01.02.2023 i.e. on the day falling 31.01.2023 on or before whichappropriate decision was required to be taken. Section 20 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes limitation of one year for filingof the contempt petition. The limitation prescribed by Section 20 is alsoapplicable to the contempt petitions entertained in exercise of powersunder Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Legal position in thisregard is settled by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, the latest being, in the matter of S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. 4959.2024CP.odtLingamaiah and others reported in AIR Online 2024 SC 509. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated unequivocal term that period ofone year of limitation prescribed under Section 20 shall also apply to acontempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.The aspect of continuing cause of action is also dealt with in the saidjudgement.6.Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner asalso Mr. A.M. Phule, learned A.G.P. representing the respondents relyon the said judgment. Whereas, the learned A.G.P. contends that thecontempt petition is barred by limitation since it is filed beyond a periodof one year from the date fixed for deciding the application, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner would contend that failure to take decision onthe proposal for starting a new college is continuing cause of action,and therefore, the contempt petition cannot be said to be filed beyondthe period of limitation.7.Having heard the respective parties, we find ourselvesunable to agree with the contentions of the petitioner that the presentcase is one of continuing cause of action. Perusal of the order passedby this Court in writ petition No.12627/2022 will demonstrate that a writwas issued to the respondent in the petition to take decision on theproposal submitted by the petitioner. Such a decision would be takenonly once and not repeatedly. We are, therefore, of the view that the 5959.2024CP.odtwrong committed by the respondents in not deciding the application isnot continuing wrong but a single act of non-compliance of the orderwhich was complete as on 31.01.2023 i.e. last date fixed by this Courtfor taking decision in the matter. Failure to take decision in the matteris a wrong committed by the respondents, which was complete in allrespects as on 31.01.2023.8.At this stage, we may briefly refer to the facts of the casein the matter of S. Tirupathi Rao (supra). In the said case, directionswere issued to the Revenue Authority to carry out mutation. Although,time frame was not fixed for compliance of the order, time limit wasprescribed under the relevant statutory Rules. Mutation entry was notcarried out within the period stipulated under the Rules. In thisbackdrop, the contempt petition was filed and contention was raisedthat failure to carry out mutation is continuing wrong, which offers acontinuing cause of action for filing contempt petition. In this backdrop,the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue of limitation inthe aforesaid judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to itsearlier decision in the matter of Balkrishna Savalram Pujari Vs.Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan reported in AIR 1959 SC798. Referring to the said judgment extensively, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has expressed that if the wrongful act causes an injury which iscomplete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage 6959.2024CP.odtresulting from such wrongful act may continue. Further referring to thejudgment in the matter of Ram Janmabhumi Temple Vs. Suresh Dasreported in 2020(91) SCC 1, it is held that a continuing wrong arises incases where an obligation is imposed by law or agreement to continueto perform an act or to desist to perform it. A continuing wrongcontemplates breach of continuing duty or breach of a continuingobligation.9.Reverting to the facts of the present case, the petitionermade an application for starting a new college. The State Governmentis competent authority for granting such permission. Such permissioncan be granted or rejected once. Once an appropriate decision istaken on a proposal for starting a new college, the said decision wouldnot be revisited over and over again, unless of course, there is a freshapplication. To put it in other words, one application for starting acollege would be decided only once and for all and not repeatedly. Theobligation or duty to decide the application for permission to start acollege is therefore not a continuing obligation or continuing duty. Interms of order passed by this Court, the said decision had to be takenon or before 31.01.2023. Failure to comply with the order and takedecision on the application, therefore, gave rise to cause of action on01.02.2023. This cause of action cannot be said to be continuingcause of action because the decision on the application would 7959.2024CP.odtobviously be taken only once and not repeatedly. We are, therefore, ofthe opinion that the present case is not a case of continuing cause ofaction as contended by the petitioner.10.We are fortified in the view that we have taken by thejudgment of S. Tirupathi Rao (supra), in which the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has held that failure to comply with a direction to carry outmutation entry does not offer continuing cause of action and acontempt petition filed beyond the period of one year from the due datewill have to be dismissed as barred by limitation.11.In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of considered opinion that thepresent petition ought to have been filed within period of one year from01.02.2023. The petition is filed on 14.10.2024, which is beyond theprescribed period of limitation of one year as fixed by Section 20 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition is therefore liable to bedismissed as barred by limitation. We therefore pass the followingorder- :- ORDER(i)The contempt petition is dismissed.[ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga