S. P. MEHROTRA, J. This 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 having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 21-2-1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16396 of 1991, Rakesh Kumar Mishra and others v. State of U. P. and others. 2. The present contempt petition was filed on 2-4-1993. 3. On 5-4-1993, the following order was passed by the Court on the contempt petition: "the petitioner, if so advised, may make an application in the writ petition, which is pending consideration in this Court. List in July. " 4. Thus, no notice was directed to be issued to the opposite parties on the contempt petition by the said order dated 5-4- 1993, and instead, the case was directed to be listed in July, 1993. 5. A perusal of the order-sheet shows that the case was listed before the Court on 24-2-1994, but was passed over on the illness slip of Sri D. P. Misra, Advocate. 6. No order appears to have been passed thereafter on the contempt petition. 7. It is, thus, evident that no order has so far been passed directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties on the contempt petition. Hence, no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the contempt petition. 8. 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 of the contempt petition in April, 1993. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 10. 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. " 11. In the present case, as per the averments made in paragraph 28 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in August, 1992. 12. " 11. In the present case, as per the averments made in paragraph 28 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in August, 1992. 12. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is not permissible for this Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties now after a lapse of about 12 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in August, 1992. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed as such. Petition dismissed. .