Kartar Singh vs Balram Sing, A.D.M. L.A And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 18183 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kartar Singh vs Balram Sing, A.D.M. L.A And Another on 21 May, 2024

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91687
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 8949 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Kartar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Balram Sing, A.D.M. L.A And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gautam Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

The writ Court on 18.07.2012 while allowing Writ-C No.28616 of 2012 had passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the contesting respondent No. 2 and have perused the record.

Although, several prayers have been made in the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners is only pressing his second prayer, which is for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents to give the benefit of the judgement of Full Bench rendered in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 (Gajraj vs. State of U.P.).

Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the petitioners being entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment.

With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage with the direction that the benefit of the said judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra) be also given to the petitioners in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands allowed."

From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the writ petition was decided in terms of Full Bench judgment rendered in case of Gajraj vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011.

Present contempt application has been filed after a lapse of 11 years.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the certified copy of the judgment was taken by the applicant in the year 2023, and the same was served upon the Authorities, as such, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not attracted.

This Court finds that Section 20 of Act is clear that 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.

In the instant case, contempt has been initiated after 11 years.

In view of the said fact, no case for contempt is made out.

Present contempt is rendered infructuous and the same stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.5.2024

SK Goswami