Judgment 1. This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 8.2.2013 passed in W.P.No.1552 of 2013. 2. In the case on hand, the order of this Court alleged to have been disobeyed by the respondent is dated 8.2.2013. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 stipulates the limitation for initiation of proceedings for contempt and the said provision reads as under: "Section 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." 3. A bare reading of Section 20 of the Act makes it amply clear that the said provision stipulates the period of limitation for initiating proceedings under the said Act as one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 4. Article 215 of the Constitution of India states that “Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself”. This Court, being a court of record, is empowered to initiate contempt proceeding and punish the contemnor under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. That apart, no limitation is prescribed for initiation of action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. However, when there is a specific law enacted by the legislature, namely, the Contempt’s of Court Act, 1971, which contemplates a period of limitation under Section 20 of the Act, the said provisions should be read harmoniously and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should be initiated within a period of one year of alleged contempt, as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act. 5. The Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549 , after referring to the power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in the light of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, held as under: “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. 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.” 6. In view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision referred supra, the action for contempt must be initiated, either by filing an application or by the Court issuing notice, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 7. In this contempt petition, the order alleged to have been disobeyed is dated 8.2.2013 and only on 5.11.2014, namely, after 21 months, the petitioners have chosen to file this contempt petition. Even the notice calling upon the respondent to comply with the order of this Court was issued on 18.7.2014, namely, after almost 15 months from the date of the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioners ought to have been diligent in pursuing the matter. The alleged violation of the order of this Court is well within the knowledge of the petitioners and they have not chosen to give any reason for filing of this contempt petition belatedly. For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of case, this contempt petition is closed as it is barred by limitation. No costs.