Davinder Goel vs Ajay Singh Tomar And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3812 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3812 P&H
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Davinder Goel vs Ajay Singh Tomar And Others on 27 April, 2026

                                    COCP-1959-2026 (O & M)                         1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                     106
                                                 COCP No.1959
                                                            1959 of 2026 (O & M)
                                                 Date of decision ::-27.04.2026

                     Davinder Goel
                                                                       .....Petitioner

                                                 Versus

                     Ajay Singh Tomar, IAS and others
                                                                       .....Respondents

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
                     CORAM:-

                     Present:-     Mr. Adeep Sharma, Advocate with
                                   Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate and
                                   Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate
                                   for the petitioners.

                                   Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

                     NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of

order dated 24.1.2019 (Annexure P-1) P 1) passed by a predecessor Bench of

this Court in CWP-1886-2019 CWP 2019 titled as "Davinder Goel vs. State of

Haryana and others", whereby respondent No. No.2-Estate Officer, Sadar

Ambala-cum cum-Deputy Deputy Commissioner Ambala, Ambala City was directed to

"...consider and decide the representation dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure P P-

12) within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

after giving an effective effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, on

consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the

benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to him, in such eventuality,

the consequential relief be allowed to him, within a period of six weeks

thereafter. However, in case the competent authority feels that the relief

claimed by the petitioner is not admissible or made out, in that case, a

speaking order be passed in the matter."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has

raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the

present contempt petition on the ground that the same is barred by

limitation in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

which prescribes that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt

after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt

is alleged to have been committed.

It has been contended that the writ Court order is dated

24.01.2019, whereas the present contempt contempt petition has been instituted much

beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. around seven years years, without

there being any sufficient explanation for such delay.

This Court finds merit in the aforesaid preliminary objection.

Section 20 of the Contempt Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly mandates that

contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after the expiry of one year from

the date of alleged disobedience. The present petition, having been filed

well beyond the said statutory period i.e. around seven yyears, is ex facie

barred by limitation.

I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah (SC) :

Law Finder Doc Id#2618555 wherein it is held that:

"Delay Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation for actions for contempt - The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown - The concept of

"continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar."

Even otherwise, learned counsel for the State has placed on

record a copy of the speaking order dated 31.12.2019, stated to have been

passed in compliance with the directions issued by the writ Court. It has

further been submitted that the said order was duly communicated to the

petitioner, as is evident from the endorsement made thereon, wherein the

name of the petitioner figures fig at Sr. No.3 in the list of recipients.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the

considered opinion that not only is the present contempt petition barred by

limitation, but the respondents also appear to have complied with the

directions irections issued by the writ Court dated 24.1.2019 (Annexure P P-1).

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the

same is dismissed.