Rajendra Kumar Pandey v. Shri Ghanshyam Bharti, Tehsildar /Assistant Collector Tehsil Kadipur District Sultanpur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1666 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.09.2022 passed in Writ C No.601 of 2022 whereby the writ Court has directed the respondent to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the certified copy of the order was served on 28.09.2022 but the matter has yet not been decided. The present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as for the first time cause of action arose on

28.09.2023 and period of one year from the said date has expired on

28.09.2024 but the present contempt application has been filed on

06.11.2025 i.e. after expiry of about more than one year and one and half month from the date when the cause of action first arose. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Act, 1971. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is an admitted case of the applicant that for the first Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Rajendra Kumar Pandey .....Applicant(s) Shri Ghanshyam Bharti, Tehsildar /Assistant Collector Tehsil Kadipur District Sultanpur .....Opposite Party(s) time the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 28.09.2023 and as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contempt petition is to be filed within a period of one year from the date the contempt has alleged to have been committed. For convenience, the Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "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." Further, in the case of Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr. [2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549] does not make Section 5 of the Act 1963 applicable and would not confer power upon the Court to condone or waive delay where proceedings of contempt are sought to be initiated under the Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, the contempt has alleged to have been committed on

28.09.2023 and the period of one year from the said date has expired on

28.09.2024 whereas the present contempt application has been preferred on 06.11.2025 after the expiry of more than one month. Hence, it is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is dismissed. December 16, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 1666 of 2025 (Manish Kumar,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench