Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Veeresh vs G Anantha Ramu Ias on 19 November, 2024
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
+ CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4290/2024
% 19.11.2024
# B.Veeresh.
......Petitioner
And:
$1. G.Anantha Ramu, I.A.S., & 3 others
....Respondents.
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Dasari S V V S V Prasad
^Counsel for the respondent :
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4290/2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.11.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4290/2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Dasari S V V S V Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This contempt case has been filed alleging the willful disobedience of
the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.23499 of
2022.
3. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
8. The bills for payment were submitted in the year 2019 but are still unpaid to the
petitioner, however, considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsels for the partiers, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of
finally with the following directions:-
a) The 5th respondent - Guduru Nagara Panchayat, shall upload the bills of
the petitioner for the work in question, in CFMS portal within two (02) weeks
from today;
b) The 2nd respondent - Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, shall thereafter within a period of
eight (8) weeks shall release the payable amount after due verification and
scrutiny, to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment;
c) The petitioner is granted liberty as prayed with respect to the claim of
interest on delayed payment;
d) The petitioner's claim for grant of interest for delayed payment, if the
petitioner approaches the respondents, shall be duly considered by the
competent authority/respondents within a month of the petitioner so
approaching;
e) The grant of time to the respondents as in (a) & (b) above on their request
for payment, would not adversely affect the petitioner's claim for interest for
the period from the date of entitlement for interest, under law, up to the date of
actual payment;
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that para No.8(a) has been
complied but no further proceedings were taken as in subsequent clauses of
para No.8.
5. This Contempt has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of
alleged contempt with respect to the directions under para No. 8.
6. As per the office report there is 298 days delay.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an
application being I.A.No.1 of 2024 to condone the delay in filing the contempt
petition, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
8. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as under:
"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".
9. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 neither provides for condonation of
delay in filing the contempt petition nor applies the provision of the Limitation
Act, Section 5 or any other provision for condonation of delay.
10. In S.Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of
alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated. It was further held that the
action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when
the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764
Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed and held that the express
negative phraseology used in Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, as a
legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Court's power to initiate
proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within
the time-frame stipulated therein.
11. Para Nos. 53 & 54 in S.Tirupathi Rao (supra) read as under:
"53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts
constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time
convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit
of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated;
meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be
brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to
punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.
54. An action for contempt - though instituted through a petition or an application -
is essentially in the nature of original proceedings, as held by this Court in High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav {(1997) 3 SCC 11); a fortiori,
a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging
contempt would not be maintainable. The express negative phraseology used in
section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the court's power
to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented
within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the
expression "date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed" as the starting
point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the
petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, the high courts
ought to be wary of crafty and skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome
the delay in presentation thereof."
12. Admittedly, this Contempt Case is filed beyond the period of one year
limitation. The contempt application is not maintainable.
13. The Contempt Case is dismissed as barred by limitation.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Dated: 19.11.2024
Note: L.R. copy be marked
B/o.
AG
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4290/2024
Dated:19.11.2024
Note: L.R. copy be marked
B/o.
AG
