Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Mishra vs Dhruv Narain Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil ... on 14 November, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75316
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4352 of 2024
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- Dhruv Narain Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil Maharajganj Raebareli
Counsel for Applicant :- Anumesh Mishra,Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged disobedience of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by this court in Petition (A-227) No. 3794 of 2022; Anil Kumar Mishra versus Tehsildar, Tehsil Maharajganj, Raebareli and others.The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No.0599/2021, Computerized Case No.T202110580100599 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."
2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the copy of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 was served upon the respondent by making a representation dated 17.10.2022, but till date, the case has not been decided by the respondent, which amounts to willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022.
3. On being asked from learned counsel for applicant that in the present case, when for the first time, the cause of action arose, he has replied that in April 2023, six months period had expired from the date of making a representation on 17.10.2022.
4. The present contempt application has been preferred after the expiry of the one year period from the date the first time cause of action arose i.e. April 2023, as admitted by learned counsel for the applicant but he is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1971).
5. The present contempt application is barred by limitation as Section 20 of the Act, 1971 which provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which, the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
6. In the present case, it is an admitted case, the contempt alleged to have been committed by the respondent was in April, 2023 and the contempt application has been filed after about more than one and a half years from April 2023, hence, it is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Act, 1971.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present contempt application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.11.2024
DiVYa
