Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Goel vs Ajay Singh Tomar And Others on 27 April, 2026
COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
COCP No.1959
1959 of 2026 (O & M)
Date of decision ::-27.04.2026
Davinder Goel
.....Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Singh Tomar, IAS and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
CORAM:-
Present:- Mr. Adeep Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate and
Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 24.1.2019 (Annexure P-1) P 1) passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court in CWP-1886-2019 CWP 2019 titled as "Davinder Goel vs. State of Haryana and others", whereby respondent No. No.2-Estate Officer, Sadar Ambala-cum cum-Deputy Deputy Commissioner Ambala, Ambala City was directed to "...consider and decide the representation dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure P P-
12) within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment after giving an effective effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, on consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to him, in such eventuality, the consequential relief be allowed to him, within a period of six weeks thereafter. However, in case the competent authority feels that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not admissible or made out, in that case, a speaking order be passed in the matter."
VIJAY ASIJA2026.04.27 20.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) 2
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present contempt petition on the ground that the same is barred by limitation in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which prescribes that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
It has been contended that the writ Court order is dated 24.01.2019, whereas the present contempt contempt petition has been instituted much beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. around seven years years, without there being any sufficient explanation for such delay.
This Court finds merit in the aforesaid preliminary objection. Section 20 of the Contempt Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly mandates that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after the expiry of one year from the date of alleged disobedience. The present petition, having been filed well beyond the said statutory period i.e. around seven yyears, is ex facie barred by limitation.
I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah (SC) :
Law Finder Doc Id#2618555 wherein it is held that:
"Delay Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation for actions for contempt - The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown - The concept of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.27 20.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) 3 "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar."
Even otherwise, learned counsel for the State has placed on record a copy of the speaking order dated 31.12.2019, stated to have been passed in compliance with the directions issued by the writ Court. It has further been submitted that the said order was duly communicated to the petitioner, as is evident from the endorsement made thereon, wherein the name of the petitioner figures fig at Sr. No.3 in the list of recipients.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that not only is the present contempt petition barred by limitation, but the respondents also appear to have complied with the directions irections issued by the writ Court dated 24.1.2019 (Annexure P P-1).
Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
April 27,, 2026
202 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
VIJAY ASIJA
2026.04.27 20.02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document