JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. In view of the order passed in the connected misc case No. 3919 of 2006 renumbered as misc case No. 16 of 2007, the instant contempt petition is taken up for final disposal, as agreed to by the parties. 2. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Kerani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajauddin, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 8 and 13. Mr. N.P.C. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Babloo, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. N. Kotiswar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 3. We have also heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur who appears on the request of this Court to assist us in view of the Order dated 07.06.2000 in the instant Contempt Petition. Mr. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent government did not comply with the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 passed in CR No. 1047 of 1995 for which the present petitioner also filed other contempt petitions being Civil Original (Contempt) Petition Nos. 2 of 1997 and 8 of 1998 and those contempt petitions were disposed of by this Court. We have gone through the Order dated 03.09.1996 passed in CR. No. 1047 of 1995 for violation of which the instant contempt petition is filed. In the aforesaid Order dated 03.09.1996 this Court directed the respondents therein as under: (a) A State Level Committee with not less than three members with the Secretary of Education as Chairman to be constituted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order to ascertain the genuineness of the institute, numbers of the students actually studying in the institute and the number of approved and unapproved teachers and the additional posts of approved teachers required. (b) While ascertaining the genuineness of the institute and the needs for additional post, the committee shall also ascertain the distance between the Government schools and the government aided schools and the distance of such schools from the residences of the children and availability/lack of transport facilities and other means of conveyance. (c) The Committee shall also verify and ascertain the qualification of each of unapproved teachers and the years of employment and experience if any. (c) The Committee shall also verify and ascertain the qualification of each of unapproved teachers and the years of employment and experience if any. (d) The Committee shall also recommend to the State Government whether or not the existing schools in the State would be sufficient to cater the needs of the children's education for some years to come, and if that is so, further recognition of private schools must be avoided so that mushrooming of the establishment of the new schools are thwarted. (e) The Committee shall also consider if, any, two or three of the schools can be amalgamated considering the distance between the schools so that the schools functions effectively with sufficient number of approved teachers and for smooth administration of the School. While considering this point, the Committee shall besides considering the actor of distance also take into account the number of students actually reading in each class of the institute. (f) For the aforesaid purposes, visiting each institute, no prior information would be required. (g) The Committee shall also examine whether any particular school/schools require special attention because of topography and difficult terrain deserving immediate taking over by the Government, such case must be recommended specifically supported with sufficient reasons. We say this, because from the order dated 15.12.95 annexed as Annexure- A/4 of the rejoinder Affidavit of the petitioner, it clearly appear that one Heirok Part-1 High School (aided) has been taken over by the Government with immediate effect under the terms and conditions stated therein. (h) The committee after ascertaining the facts as stated above shall submit the report recommending/rejecting school wise the additional post required on the basis of a need in phase manner the first batch of which would start from the financial year 1996-97. (i) Till such time the creation of additional post on the basis of a need as directed above are completed, further recognition of the new schools are thwarted. (j) Unapproved teachers who are possessing requisite qualification under the relevant rules may be made as approved teachers against the additional post so created through State Selection Committee as enjoined under Rule 4(c) of the rules. Selection before State Selection Committee shall be done on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the eligible candidates. (j) Unapproved teachers who are possessing requisite qualification under the relevant rules may be made as approved teachers against the additional post so created through State Selection Committee as enjoined under Rule 4(c) of the rules. Selection before State Selection Committee shall be done on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the eligible candidates. The State Level Committee shall submit its report to the Government within a period of three months from the date of the constitution of the Committee. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the directions of this Court in the aforesaid order has been complied with except item nos. (h) and (j) in the said order. As confronted by this Court. Mr. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions given by this Court in its Order dated 03.09.1996, particularly in item nos. (h) and (j), are to the Committee for submitting report to the Government for recommending/rejecting school wise additional posts and to the State Selection Committee as per Rule 4(C) of the rules. He also submits that the report had been submitted by the Committee to the Government. But according to him, the respondents in the instant contempt petition did not comply with the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 in its entirety, for which petitioner preferred this petition and this is a fit case for initiating contempt proceeding. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are not holding the posts of Commissioner of Education (S), Director of Education (s), Government of Manipur, Minister in-charge Education, Director of Education (S) Director of Education (s), Government of Manipur respectively as some of them have already retired from service were not holding the respective posts and also some of them are by this time retired from service. 5. The said submission of learned Counsel for the respondents is also not denied by Mr. N. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N. Kerani learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 13 submits that these respondents are also not holding the respective posts for which they were made party at the time of filing the petition. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 8 and 9 submits that both of the respondents had already retired from service. Mr. N. Kerani learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 13 submits that these respondents are also not holding the respective posts for which they were made party at the time of filing the petition. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 8 and 9 submits that both of the respondents had already retired from service. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, no case for initiation of contempt proceeding against the answering respondents and/or anybody else is made out, since they had already complied with the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996, the present contempt petition requires to be closed. And if there is any non compliance of the Order i.e. the Order dated 18.11.1997 passed in Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No. 2 of 1997 which is also filed for alleged violation of the order dated 03.09.1996, petitioner may take up the matter in appropriate forum but the plea for alleged violation of order dated 18.11.1997 can not be raised in the instant petition and he has also no right to file one after another contempt petition for violation of Order dated 03.09.1996, when this Court closed the earlier contempt petition. 6. Learned AG, Manipur also fairly submits that the Court cannot initiate any contempt proceeding against any person for violation of the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 passed in CR No. 1047 of 1995 as because the instant contempt petition is filed on 03.08.1999 i.e. beyond one year from the date of order. Not only that even if this Court considering the Apex Court's decision come to a conclusion that not from the date of the order but from the date of filing of the contempt petition one year has to be counted then also the present contempt petition is filed on 03.08.1999 and by this time also about three years have been completed from the date of filing of petition, therefore, no contempt proceeding can be initiated as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Court's Act, he contended. 7. In support of his contention, the learned AG Manipur relied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Ors. reported in 2001 CriLJ 4175, particularly, para No. 44. He further submits that the order passed in the instant contempt petition and/or other orders passed in the petition filed by the present petitioner including the Civil Original (Contempt) Petition Nos. reported in 2001 CriLJ 4175, particularly, para No. 44. He further submits that the order passed in the instant contempt petition and/or other orders passed in the petition filed by the present petitioner including the Civil Original (Contempt) Petition Nos. 2 of 1997 and 8 of 1998 do not form part of the order dated 03.09.1996 for which the present Contempt Petition is filed for alleged violation of the Court's order, the petitioner may file appropriate petition for compliance of those orders and directions, but, in the present contempt petition, this Court cannot take any cognizance of those orders and directions which are not the subject matter of this petition. 8. Before consideration of submission of learned Counsel for the parties we think it would be proper on our part to reproduce the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 (for short Contempt Act) and also paragraph 44 of the Pallav Seth (supra) respectively hereunder for better appreciation. 20. Limitation for actions for contempt. No Court shall initiate any proceedings of 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. 44. 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 the 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 9. From the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt Act, a reasonable man can, easily come to a conclusion, that the legislature by way of enacting the said provision prescribed the period of limitation for initiating a proceeding under the said Act or in other words put certain restrictions on the Court for taking actions for contempt after the period of limitation prescribed. As the said provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt Act is a mandatory one it would not be proper for the Court to frustrate the legislative mandate. Undoubtedly, the High Court is not powerless even when the period of one year is expired from the date of alleged violation of Court's order, Court can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution, but the case in hand is not such a one, where Court can exercise its inherent power. 10. The weapon of contempt is only to maintain the dignity of the majesty of law and not to execute the direction or implementing the Court's order for which alternative remedy in law is prescribed. Further, an aggrieved party like the present petitioner has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between the contemnor and the Court. (See R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400 ). Again, the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Das and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 573 also held that: The contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. 11. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. 11. We have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, the records available, the provisions of Section 20 of Contempt of Court's Act, the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, including the case of Pallav Seth (supra) relied by the learned A.G. Manipur and in view of the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases, not in a routine manner, we find no reasons for initiating contempt proceeding for alleged violation of this Court's order after one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed since the instant contempt petition is filed alleging violation of Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 only on 03.08.1999 i.e. after about 2 1/2 years, Furthermore, after going through the order dated 03.09.1996, for violation of which, the present contempt petition is filed and other order of this Court as annexed in the present contempt petition and submission of learned Counsel for the parties, we are also of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case from which it can be gathered that the respondents violated the Court's Order dated 03.09.1996 wilfully, and/or intentionally, rather it appears from record that the respondents in the writ petition have already substantially complied with the aforesaid Court's order dated 03.09.1996 and it is also admitted by Mr. N. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that in compliance of the Court's order the State respondents constituted the Committee and the said committee also submitted its report to the government whereunder they recommended/rejected schoolwise additional posts as required, and particularly mentioned in item (h) of the aforesaid order dated 03.09.96. And almost all the respondents in the instant contempt petition are no longer in service and some of them are also not holding the respective posts. 12. And almost all the respondents in the instant contempt petition are no longer in service and some of them are also not holding the respective posts. 12. Therefore, according to us, even if these respondents want to comply with the Court's order dated 03.09.1996, they will not be in a position to comply the same, as at present they are not holding the respective government offices, for which they are made party. 13. Furthermore, according to us, even if there is any violation of the Court's order, as contended i.e. not the order dated 03.09.1996 in CR No. 1047 of 1995 but the order dated 18.11.1997. As we have already held that there is no wilful violation of order dated 03.09.1996 by the respondents, for which the present contempt petition is filed, hence, we are of the opinion that the present petition is required to be closed, as there is no wilful or intentional violation of Court's order, which is sine qua non for initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of Contempt Act. However, we are not expressing any opinion regarding the order dated 18.11.1997 as the present petition is not for violation of the aforesaid order. 14. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the present contempt petition is hereby closed.