ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J. - Applicant Om Prakash Jaiswal has filed this application tinder S. 10 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, for punishing Opposite Party D. K. Mittal, Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika. Allahabad and Deo Wrat Dixit, Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority. Allahabad, for having committed contempt of Court as defined in sub-cl. (b) of S. 2 of the Act. 2. Facts giving rise to this application is that the applicant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20471 of 1986. for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Nagar Mahapalika through Administrator and Allahabad Development Authority not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute 177/211 IArazi Barood Khana. Allahabad) or by demolishing, dismantling and destroying any portion and any construction existing thereon including the house, cattle-shed, fodder store and boundary wall etc. The case was put-up for admission before the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble A. N. Verma, J. and Hon'ble R.S. Dhawan, J. No interim order was passed. However, Sri A. K. Mohiley, Advocate, who is counsel for Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad as also of the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad was directed orally by the Court to ask his clients not to demolish or destroy the construction of the petitioner existing on the land in dispute till 17-12-1986, on which date the case was directed to be listed. Copies of the writ petition and affidavits were duly served on Sri A. K. Mohiley. It is alleged that on 19-12-1986, an undertaking was given by Sri A. K. Mohiley that as long as the writ petition is not decided by the Court no demolition operation shall be conducted by the opposite parties. This undertaking was recorded by the Court and the application so filed by the petitioner was disposed of. 3. The petitioner has alleged that in the morning of Sunday, the 11th January, 1987, employees of the opposite parties including the opposite parties themselves accompanied with heavy police and PAC force, along with bull-dozers and other house breaking equipment. as also accompanied with two vehicles Nos. UPZ 1431, UTY 9213 and two other vehicles Nos. UG V 9019 and UPZ 8742? surrounded, the fields and the building of the petitioner and started demolishing the construction of the petitioner's existing on the land. as also accompanied with two vehicles Nos. UPZ 1431, UTY 9213 and two other vehicles Nos. UG V 9019 and UPZ 8742? surrounded, the fields and the building of the petitioner and started demolishing the construction of the petitioner's existing on the land. The officials of the opposite parties were approached with the certified copy of the undertaking by the driver of the applicant, but he was detained and arrested. The undertaking was not looked into. The applicant has, thus, alleged that the employees of the opposite parties have completely demolished five iron gates, eight small iron gates, boundary walls, fodder house, four rooms, one verandah, cattle-shed etc. It is alleged that in this demolition operation a buffalo of the applicant also died. It has, thus been alleged that the acts of intentionally and wilfully violating the undertaking by the opposite parties is a gross abuse of powers by the opposite parties and they are liable to be seriously dealt with and punished according to law. Before proceeding further it is relevant to reproduce the order dated 19-12-46. which was passed by the Division Bench of this 'Court : "Sri A.K. Mohiley counsel for Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Undertakes before us that the Nagar Mahapalika will not disturb or demolish the constructions in question made by the petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition. The undertaking is placed on the record. The application accordingly stands disposed of... The above order was passed when the applicant filed another application for a restraint order. When this application was filed the Court vide order dated 15-1-87, passed the following order : "Issue show cause notice to the opposite parties as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for defiance of order dated l9.12.1986 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20471 of 1986, O.O. Jaiswal v. Nagar Mahapalika and others. List it for orders on 4-2-87." Pursuant to the issuance of this show cause notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their counter affidavits. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party D.K. Mittal. He has categorically repudiated the allegations in the affidavit except admitting that the writ petition No. 20471 of 1986 was filed. It has been shown in the counter affidavit that Nagar Mahapalika is constituted under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyant, 1959. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party D.K. Mittal. He has categorically repudiated the allegations in the affidavit except admitting that the writ petition No. 20471 of 1986 was filed. It has been shown in the counter affidavit that Nagar Mahapalika is constituted under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyant, 1959. Officers and staff of the Nagar Mahapalika are separate and t heir functions and duties are also distinct and separate. It has further been contended that the Development Authority is a separate autonomous body established under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. This authority was constituted to ensure that the future development in the CAVAL towns takes place in a planned and phased manner. Functions, staff and finance of the Development Authority are separately demarcated under the provisions of the said Act and the functions to he carried out by the Development Authority are indicated in Sections 8, 9, 13 and 17 and 21) of the Act. 5. It may he mentioned here that only the following functions were retained by the Mahapalika : (a) Assessment, (b) Collection of dues, (c) Octroi, (d) Maintenance of drainage and roads (e) Street light, and to Maintenance of water works and public health. 6. Presently the maintenance of drainage and water works is being looked after by Jal Nigant. It is shown in the counter affidavit that on 23rd December, 1986. Sri A.K. Mohiley addressed a letter to the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad informing him that the constructions of the petitioner be not demolished till the writ petition is finally disposed of. On receipt of the said letter orders were issued by Opposite Party No. 1 to Sahavak Nagar Adhikari t Nazoob and Nazool Superintendent for compliance of such information as was given by the Legal Advisor, Incharge of the Law Department. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. 7. It has been categorically asserted by the opposite party No. 1 that he never went with any police or P.A.C. force or with any demolition squad. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. 7. It has been categorically asserted by the opposite party No. 1 that he never went with any police or P.A.C. force or with any demolition squad. It has also been shown in the counter affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 that the affidavit sworn by the opposite party No. 2 was shown to him which reveals that the notices under Sections 277 and 28 of the Act were issued to the petitioners or having made unauthorised construction, opposite party No. 1 has submitted that he is a responsible public servant and is aware that the Court occupies the highest status and their orders are to he obeyed without any demur or objection. It has further been alleged that being a responsible person it did not occur to him at all to show any disrespect to the Court. Lastly the opposite party No. 1 submitted an unqualified apology it is found that the conduct of the opposite party was not correct. 8. Opposite Party No. 2 Deo Wrat Dixit. who is the secretary of the Allahahad Development Authority, Allahahad, also filed a counter affidavit repudiating the allegations in the affidavit filed by the applicant. It has bee alleged by the.opposite party No. 2 that no instructions were ever given nor any order was ever served on him except that he came to know that Sri A.K. Mohiley has addressed a letter to Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. It has been alleged by the opposite party No. 2 that from enquiries it has been revealed that the Special Officer of the Authority had issued notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act on 10th November, 1986 fixing 15th November, 1986 for the appearance of the petitioner. As the petitioner did not appear on 15-11-86, a fresh notice fixing 21st November, 1986, was issued. On the failure of the petitioner to appear or show cause order for demolition of the unauthorised construction was sent to the petitioner on 25th November, 1986. 9. The opposite party No. 2 has no doubt admitted that on perusal of record it is revealing that the petitioner did not file any appeal nor any stay order was served on the Allahabad Development Authority and therefore the staff of the Authority demolished the unauthorised construction on 9-1-1987 after the expiry of the requisite period as Contemplated under S. 27(1). 10. 10. It has categorically been stated by the opposite party No. 2 that he was not at all present on the spot when the demolition look place. Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that he is a responsible public servant and is fully aware about the system that the Court occupies the highest system. It has been alleged that the allegations against the opposite parties are totally false. 11. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant repudiating the allegations in the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments as contained in the affidavit. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri G. N.Chandra has submitted the that the opposite parties have disobeyed the orders dated 19- 12-M, and, thus. are guilty of showing disrespect to the orders of the Court and If thus, liable to he punished according to law. In this case learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the opposite parties duly assisted by A.K. Mohiley. S. 2(b)defines civil contempt. thereby means "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree. direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." Applicant has claimed action under S. 10 of the Act, which reads its under: "10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt's of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of it contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempts is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code." 14. In this case learned Advocate General has made marathon submission in defence of the opposite parties. 15. Firstly, it has been submitted that the application under S. 10 is not maintainable as the opposite parties are not courts subordinate to High Courts. I find merit in this submission. 16. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the alleged unauthorised trespass and demolition of the construction is an offence punishable under the Penal Code and as such the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 cannot be invoked. This submission too is meritorious. I find merit in this submission. 16. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the alleged unauthorised trespass and demolition of the construction is an offence punishable under the Penal Code and as such the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 cannot be invoked. This submission too is meritorious. To buttress his submissions learned Advocate General has traced history of the contempt of Court and in support thereof he placed reliance on the following decisions : Kuchhwar Lime and Stone Co. v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Pat 65; S.M. Banerjee v. Kuchhwar Lime and Stone Co., AIR 1938 PC 295; District Judge, Chhindwara v. Barose Lal, AIR 1940 Nag 103; Emperor v. Benjamin Gey Horniman, AIR 1945 All 1 ; P.L. Jaitly v. Sir lqbal Ahmad, C.J. All and others, AIR 1945 Oudh 266; State v. Padmakant Malviya, AIR 1945 All 523; Corporation of Calcutta v. Director of Rationing, AIR 1955 Cal 282 ; State of U.P. v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukund Lal Sarraf, AIR 1956All 383; Sarkar-E-Aali-Zaria Nazim v. Athar, AIR 1957 And Pra 714; District Board All. v. Tahir Hussain, AIR 1959 All 572 (FB); Director of Rationing v. The Corporation of Calcutta and others, AIR 1960 SC 1355 ; Dibakar Satpathy v. Hon'ble C.J. of Orissa, H.C., AIR 1961 SC 1315 ; Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhun Jhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669 ; Santosh Kumar v. Raja Sri Bir Chandra, AIR 1965 Ori 222 ; Supdt. and Legal Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corp. of Calcutta, AIR 1967 SC 997 ; C.K. Dephtory v. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1130 ; R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 858 ; K. Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer Town Municipal Council, AIR 1976 SC 994 ; Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 777 , and Capt. Dushyant Somal v. Smt. Sushma Somal, AIR 1981 SC 1026 . It is not necessary to dwell upon or examine the merits of the submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate General as the controversy is to be disposed of in a different light. 17. Dushyant Somal v. Smt. Sushma Somal, AIR 1981 SC 1026 . It is not necessary to dwell upon or examine the merits of the submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate General as the controversy is to be disposed of in a different light. 17. This application admittedly was filed on 15-1-87 when the Court directed issue of notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not be punished for having disobeyed the order passed in the writ petition on 19-12-86. In this context learned Advocate General has sought to invoke the aid of S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. S. 20 enjoins as under :- "20. Limitation for actions for contempt No Court shall initiate any proceedings for 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." It has been submitted though at late stage after Herculean effort was made to protect the opposite parties that the application deserves to be rejected in view of the expiry of one year. Reliance has been placed in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Uma Shanker Bajpai, 1988 ALJ 114. It was held that the period of limitation as provided in S. 20 of the Act is to be determined on the date when the proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court. It was further found that the order dated 21-1-86 to issue show cause notice does not amount to initiation of proceeding by this Court. 18. In the case of Peer Bux v. Raja Ram and others, 1988 ALJ 700, it was held that mere issuing a notice to show cause why the proceeding under the Act be not initiated, shall not amount to actual initiation of the proceeding. 19. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. B.K. Banerji, 1988 ALJ 1279, it was held that the application for contempt even though filed within one year, was liable to be rejected as issuing of notice for showing cause is not the initiation of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. 20-21. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. B.K. Banerji (supra) reliance was placed in the case of G.N. Verma v. Har Govind Dayal, AIR 1975 All 52 . 22. 20-21. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. B.K. Banerji (supra) reliance was placed in the case of G.N. Verma v. Har Govind Dayal, AIR 1975 All 52 . 22. In the case of Gulab Singh v. Ramji Das, AIR 1975 All 366 , a similar view was taken that action under the Contempt of Courts Act necessarily postulates when the proceedings for contempt were initiated within one year of the contempt committed. 23. In view of the above decisions and of my own I am clear that issuing of notice for showing cause why contempt proceedings may not be initiated is not an initiation of, proceeding. Issuing of such a show cause notice does not within the ambit of S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 24. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the opposite parties had earlier submitted that they would not take up this plea of limitation. But there cannot be estoppel against the law. Even if the parties do not take up the plea of limitation it is open for the Court to determine as to whether provisions of S. 20 are attracted or not. 25. Argument in this case concluded on 28-1958 and till then no proceedings were initiated. The application is, thus, hit by S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and is, thus, not maintainable. 26. In view of the above this application does not lie and deserves to he rejected. 27. In the result the application fails and is hereby rejected. Costs on parties.