JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—In a civil suit (No. 9 of 1988 titled as Devki v. State of H.P.) pending in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, fiilaspur, an application was made on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh through the District Collector, Bilaspur, before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, under sections 24 and 151 C.P.C. The prayer made was that the suit be transferred to another Court for disposal. The application was made on 18th February, 1991, under the signatures of Shri S. K. Dash, the then District Collector, Bilaspur. 2. The Senior Sub-Judge had passed an order on 8th February, 1991 in the suit when two of the witnesses summoned for that date were not found present before the Court. These wintesses were the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Financial Commissioner-CMW-Secretary (Revenue). The learned Senior Sub Judge directed that they be summoned through bailable warrants. He also directed issue of notice to them to show cause why fine, as provided under Rule 12 of Order XVI C. P. C. be not imposed upon them for not appearing in the Court even after due service of the summons. 3. In the transfer application it was averred that the order aforesaid appeared to have been passed with some ulterior motive and that from the said order it appeared that there was some extraneous consideration which had affected the mind of the Senior Sub Judge in passing the order. 4. On account of the averments aforesaid in the transfer application, which came to the notice of the Senior Sub Judge when a copy of the transfer application was forwarded to him by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, for comments, a reference was made by the Senior Judge to this Court for proceeding against Shri S. K Dash under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter was registered as Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 29 of 1991. 5. On 20th March, 1992 the Additional Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh informed the Court that the District Collector, Bilaspur, under whoso signatures the transfer application aforesaid had been made was Shri S. K. Dash, who was then posted as Director Pan-chayati Raj at Shimla. The matter was registered as Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 29 of 1991. 5. On 20th March, 1992 the Additional Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh informed the Court that the District Collector, Bilaspur, under whoso signatures the transfer application aforesaid had been made was Shri S. K. Dash, who was then posted as Director Pan-chayati Raj at Shimla. The Court passed an order directing issue of notice to Shri S. K. Dash on that date which, in its material part, reads thus: "Let notice issue to Shri S K. Dash to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act for the insinuation made in the application dated Feb 18, 1991, particularly in paragraphs 3 and 4. In addition to the notice to be served directly on Shri S. K, Dash, let a copy of notice be also served upon him through the Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh. Notice shall be made returnable in three weeks…..” 5. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the transfer application dated 18th February, 1991 it had been averred "4. That legally there was no occasion for the issuance of bailable warrants as well as show cause notice to the Chief Secy. Shri M. S. Mukharjee and F. C.-cum-Secy. (Revenue) to the Govt. of H. P and the impugned order appears to have been passed with some ulterior motive. 6. That it would appear from the perusal of the order passed by the learned S. S. J. dated 8-2-1991 that there was some extraneous considerations which have affected the mind of the learned S. S. J. in passing the said order. As such, the defendant apprehends that there are bleak chances of getting justice in the said case from the Court of Shri George, S. S. J. Bilaspur, H. P." 7. In the reference made by him to this Court the Senior Sub-Judge has observed (in paragraph 2) thus s "2. That in the transfer application in paras Nos. 4 and 5, the applicant has cast serious aspersions scandalising the Court by making an attack on the judicial conduct with impunity of the undersigned. The applicant has mentioned in paras Nos. In the reference made by him to this Court the Senior Sub-Judge has observed (in paragraph 2) thus s "2. That in the transfer application in paras Nos. 4 and 5, the applicant has cast serious aspersions scandalising the Court by making an attack on the judicial conduct with impunity of the undersigned. The applicant has mentioned in paras Nos. 4 and 5 of the application that impugned order appears to have been passed with some ulterior motive and that "there are some extraneous considerations which have affected the mind of the learned Senior Sub Judge in passing the said order. As such, the defendant apprehends that there is bleak chances of getting justice in the said case from the Court of Shri George, Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur". The applicant by using the words ulterior motive and extraneous considrations has not only scandalized the judicial conduct with impunity of the undersigned but has also created an impression in the mind of the public that the undersigned as a judicial officer is deciding cases on extraneous considerations and with ulterior motive In case, the judicial officer is attacked in his judicial conduct with impunity such as ulterior motive and extraneous coasideratian in the administration of justice, the confidence of the public at large is bound to suffer and no greater mischief than this can possibly be imagined." 8. On being served with notice issued to him in pursuance of the order dated 20th March, 1992 the respondent appeared and filed a reply to the show cause notice. 9. In paragraph (1) of this reply, where it deals with the preliminary objection, it has been pleaded that the proceedings against the respondent were barred by limitation. Thereafter, the respondent has given his version in the matter and towards the concluding portion of the reply (in paragraphs 5 and 6) he has said that: "5.........the answering respondent tenders unqualified apology for the use of such words in the transfer application. As submitted earlier, it was never the intention of the answering respondent, either to cast any aspersion on the conduct of the learned judicial officers, or to show any disrespect to them. 6. As submitted earlier, it was never the intention of the answering respondent, either to cast any aspersion on the conduct of the learned judicial officers, or to show any disrespect to them. 6. That the respondent also submits that he has all regards and respects for the judicial officers and has done nothing or will never do, in future, anything which may lower the prestige and dignity of the courts......." before praying that the notice issued to him be discharged and the proceedings dropped. 10. The submissions made on behalf of the opposite party by his learned Counsel Shri S. P. Jain covered a wide field but the basic emphasis was upon the unconditional apology, apart from the plea that the proceedings against the respondent were barred by limitation. 11. It is undisputed that the act of contempt attributed to respondent S. K. Dash is founded upon the words used in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the transfer application moved under his signatures. That application was of 18th February, 1991. Notice, which was served upon the respondent (on 24th March, 1992, according to his reply) was in pursuance of the order made by this Court on 20th March, 1992 when for the first time mind was applied to the matter by this Court. Section 20 of the Act says: "20. Limitation for actions for contempt—No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its 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. 12. The initiation of proceedings, for purposes of the above provision, means the application of mind by the Court to the circumstances of the case to decide whether notice should issue to the person proceeded against or not. (See: Dineshbhai A Parikh v, Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarveh Ahmedabad and others, AIR 1980 Guj 194). 13. If the initiation of proceedings, as so understood, does not take place within the period of one year envisaged by Section 20 of the Court ceases to have jurisdiction in the matter. This legal position admits of no doubt. (See: Dineshbhai A Parikh v, Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society, Nagarveh Ahmedabad and others, AIR 1980 Guj 194). 13. If the initiation of proceedings, as so understood, does not take place within the period of one year envisaged by Section 20 of the Court ceases to have jurisdiction in the matter. This legal position admits of no doubt. It has been succinctly stated by the Karnataka High Court in N. Venkataramanappa v. D.K. Naikar and another, AIR 1978 Knt 57 (in Paragraph 5) thus: "......Section 20 provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its 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. The bar contained in Section 20 of the Act is an absolute bar- It bars initiation of any proceedings for contempt after the expiry of the period of one year from the date oat which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The bar is applicable not only for initiation of contempt at the instance of the complainant but also against suo motu initiation of proceedings by the High Court- The language of Section 20 makes it clear that the period of one year commences from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. After the expiry of the said period of one year, no court can initiate any proceedings for contempt either suo motu or otherwise......" And, by the Gujarat High Court in Dineshbhai A. Parikh, AIR 1980 Gui 194, (in paragraphs 11 and 19) in these words 1 “The fetter which Section 20 places on the jurisdiction of the court is that the court shall not initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiration of a period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. ......Action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be taken if the court has applied its mind and initiate proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt. If...... ......Action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be taken if the court has applied its mind and initiate proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt. If...... the court has passed no order thereon before the expiry of one year from the said date, such application automatically fails and the jurisdiction of the court is barred because the court did not apply its mind to the complaint or information within a period of one year..." 14. I am in respectful agreement with the statement of law so made. 15. The present proceedings deserve to be dropped against respondent S. K Dash on this ground alone without going into any other aspect of the matter. I direct accordingly and discharge the notice issued to Shri Dash in pursuance of the order of this Court of 20th March, 1992. Order accordingly.