[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kalandi Charan Pati vs Chakrabarti Singh Rathore And .... ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.5923 of 2024
Kalandi Charan Pati .... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera 1, Advocate
-Versus-
Chakrabarti Singh Rathore and .... Opposite Parties
Others
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 30.01.2026
04. 1. A preliminary objection is raised by learned counsel appearing for
the alleged contemnors that the instant contempt application is
hopelessly barred by limitation provided under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
2. The contempt application arises on an allegation that the alleged
contemnors have willfully and deliberately violated the order/direction
passed on 16.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.11440 of 2020 in not paying the
compensation along with interest in the event of any construction is
made on the land within two months from the date of production/
communication of the order.
3. It is not in dispute that the said order is duly communicated to the
alleged contemnors but the instant contempt application is taken out
alleging that despite having made known to the said order, the
compliance has not been secured. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts
Act provides the period of limitation for initiation of contempt
proceeding within a period of one year from the date on which the
contempt is alleged to have been committed.
4. Admittedly, the instant contempt application is filed beyond one
year from the date of the alleged contempt to have been committed. The
Court put a time line within which the directions have to be complied
with and the moment such time stipulated in the said order expires, it
gives rise to a contemptuous act and the period of limitation provided
under Section 20 of the said Act is start ticking. It is imperative on the
part of the person to approach the Court alleging that its order has been
duly violated within the period of limitation provided under Section 20
of the said Act. Even if, the High Court is conferred with the powers to
punish for its own contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India, yet the moment the Contempt of Courts Act have been
promulgated incorporating the provision relating to the period of
limitation within which the litigant must approach, the same has been
given a primacy which can further be fortified from a three Judge
Bench decision of the apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs.
Custodian and others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549. The three Judge
Bench of the apex Court in the said decision observed "is true that the
High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be
exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law". The
three Judge Bench ultimately held that once the procedure of law or a
validly enacted law is envisaged in an Act, the proceeding for contempt
being a quashi criminal in nature, the punishment can be ordered by the
Court is strictly adhering to the stringent provisions, therefor. The
decision of the three Judge Bench rendered in Pallav Sheth (supra) is
reiterated and restated in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and others reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in the following:
"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 Yadav43;
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."
5. Undisputedly, the instant contempt application is taken out beyond
the period of limitation provided under Section 20 of the said Act and,
therefore, we find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors.
6. The contempt petition is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation.
No order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
