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 24.4.2012 made in W.P.No.11350 of 2012. 2. This Court, by order dated 24.4.2012, directed the respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 for allotment of an alternative shop and pass orders on merits, if permissible under law, expeditiously. 3. The petitioner instead of filing the contempt petition for alleged violation of the said order, chose to file another writ petition in W.P.No.27064 of 2012 seeking allotment of a shop in Koyambedu Kamaraj Flower Market, Chennai. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.No.27064 of 2012, by order dated 6.8.2014, directed the respondent to comply with the earlier order passed by this Court on 24.4.2012. 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 24.4.2012 made in W.P.No.11350 of 2012, he ought to have filed a contempt petition within the statutory period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Filing of another writ petition for the same relief cannot be a basis for this Court to entertain the contempt petition after the limitation period has expired. 5. 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." 6. 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. 7. 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. 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 Contempts 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. 8. 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. 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. 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. 10. In this contempt petition, the order alleged to have been disobeyed is dated 24.4.2012 and only on 16.10.2014, namely, after 30 months, the petitioner has chosen to file this contempt petition. The date of knowledge of the alleged violation of this Court order is not specifically stated by the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been diligent in pursuing the matter. The date of knowledge of the alleged violation of this Court order is not specifically stated by the petitioner. The petitioner 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 petitioner and he has 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.