Sajjad Tariq vs Yasha Mudgal Secretary
2024 Latest Caselaw 351 j&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Sajjad Tariq vs Yasha Mudgal Secretary on 4 March, 2024

Author: Sindhu Sharma

Bench: Sindhu Sharma

                                                                    Sr. No. 17
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                                      CCP(S) No. 50/2024 in
                                                      WP(C) No. 1037/2020
                                                        CM No. 1041/2024


Sajjad Tariq                                       .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                        Through:-     Mr. Priyanshu Sharma, Advocate

                  V/s

Yasha Mudgal Secretary                                      .....Respondent(s)
Toursim Deptt. and another

                        Through:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                     ORDER

04.03.2024

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of

contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and

deliberate defiance of the judgment and order of this Court dated dated

07.12.2021, passed in WP(C) No. 1037/2020 titled "Sajjad Tariq Vs.

UT of J&K and another", vide which, the writ petition was disposed of

with the following direction:-

"In view of the short grievance this writ petition is disposed of at this stage by directed the respondent No. 1 was directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for release of the capita out right investment subsidy (COIS) at the rate of 30% in favour of the petitioner in terms of Tourism Incentive Rules and Govt. Order No. 72TSM of 1995 dated 26.04.1995 read with Tourism Incentive Rules, 2012, keeping in view the communication No. DTJ/INC/330 dated 18.04.2018 and communications dated 24.11.2018 and 28.02.2019 by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner."

2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contains a limitation clause within

it. Section 20 of the Act being relevant is reproduced as under:-

"20. Limitation for actions for contempt - 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."

3. The power to punish for contempt under the Act is granted for

effective implementation of its order but the same cannot be exercised

beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of the

Act.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present contempt

petition is hit by the provision of limitation as contemplated under the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This petition is, thus, barred by

limitation and is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to

avail appropriate remedy available under law.

(SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE

Jammu:

04.03.2024 Vishal