JUDGMENT : S.P. MEHROTRA, J. – The present Contempt Petition has been filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia, prayed that the Opposite Parties be summoned and punished for the alleged willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18106 of 1987 (Jagat Pal Upadhyaya v. Union of India and another). 2. The present Contempt Petition was filed on 19th April, 1993. 3. On 20th April, 1993, this Court passed the following order on the Contempt Petition: "List on 10.5.1993. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that in the meantime he would obtain the payments of emoluments of the petitioner from the Registrar as also necessary direction in this regard in the pending writ petition." 4. A perusal of the above order dated 20th April, 1993 shows that there was no direction for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties on the Contempt Petition. 5. A perusal of the record including the order-sheet of the Contempt Petition shows that no order for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties on the Contempt Petition has so far been passed. Therefore, no notice has so far been issued to any of the Opposite Parties on the Contempt Petition. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by directing for issuance of notices to the opposite Parties now after a lapse of about 11 years since the filing 0 the Contempt Petition in the year 1993. 7. There is one more aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lays down as follows: "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." 8. The contempt in the present case is alleged to have been committed in the year 1993. In view of the aforesaid provisions of section 20, it is not permissible for this Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against the Opposite Parties in the Contempt Petition, now after a lapse of about 11 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the Opposite Parties in the year 1993. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of section 20, it is not permissible for this Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against the Opposite Parties in the Contempt Petition, now after a lapse of about 11 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the Opposite Parties in the year 1993. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Contempt Petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed as such. Contempt Petition Dismissed.