Allahabad High Court
Sarju @ Sarju Prasad vs Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi Sub ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6473
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 268 of 2025
Applicant :- Sarju @ Sarju Prasad
Opposite Party :- Mithilesh Kumar Tripathi Sub Divisional Magistrate Tahsil Salon Distt. Raebareli And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Jayswal,Rajesh Kumar Vaishya
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2022. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"It is thus open to the petitioner to invoke proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in case any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be decided expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of its institution.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2022, an application under Section 24 alongwith certified copy of the judgment was filed in January, 2023, but till date, no decision has been taken althoug they are making efforts, but no final decision has been taken. This amounts to willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ court.
3. It is further submitted that the applicant, in between, made a complaint under the Sampurna Samadhan Diwas and reminders were also given, but all had gone in vain.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the records of the case, the Court has asked the learned counsel for the applicant to show the application moved under Section 24 in the month of January 2023, as alleged by him, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the same is not on record and the fact may be verified from the complaint made in Sampurna Samadhan Diwas. So, it is not on record that the judgment and order passed by the writ court was ever served upon the respondent and the three months period, as admitted by the applicant, had expired in February, 2023, whereas the present contempt application has been moved on 17.01.2025.
5. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971), '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. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as one year period had expired in February, 2024, whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 17 January, 2025 i.e. after about one year, 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of above, the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, hence the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.1.2025
DiVYa
