Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 516 (ALL)

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA v. CHANDRA PAL SINGH

2004-03-10

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2004
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. It is, inter-alia, prayed that the opposite parties be prosecuted and punished for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 19th June, 1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8117-A of 1992, Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P. and others. 3. A perusal of the record of the contempt petition shows that the present contempt petition was filed on 13th April, 1993. 4. On 15th April, 1993, the following order was passed on the contempt petition : "list this case on 30-4-1993. In the meantime, learned Counsel for the petitioner may initiate appropriate proceedings in the pending writ petition to obtain necessary direction for consideration of his case for regularization of his services. " 5. It further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 15th April, 1993, the contempt petition was listed on 30th April, 1993. On 30th April, 1993, the Court passed the following order : "none appears. List again in ordinary course. " 6. Thereafter, the case was listed before the Court on 11th February, 2004. On the said date i. e. 11th February, 2004, the case was passed over on the illness slip of the learned Counsel for the petitioner- applicant and was directed to be listed, peremptorily, in the next cause list. 7. Pursuant to the said order dated 11th February, 2004, the case was listed on 20th February, 2004. On the said date i. e. 20th February, 2004, the case was again adjourned on the illness slip of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and was directed to be listed, peremptorily, in the next cause list. 8. Pursuant to the said order dated 20th February, 2004, the case was listed on 27th February, 2004. On the said date, i. e. 27th February, 2004, the case was again adjourned on the illness slip of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and was directed to be listed, peremptorily, in the next cause list. 9. Thereafter, the case is listed today peremptorily. None is present on behalf of the petitioner- applicant. 10. From the aforesaid narration of the facts, it is evident that no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the contempt petition. 11. 9. Thereafter, the case is listed today peremptorily. None is present on behalf of the petitioner- applicant. 10. From the aforesaid narration of the facts, it is evident that no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the contempt petition. 11. 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 the year 1993. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides 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. " 13. In the present case, as per the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in January, 1993. 14. No peculiar circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court to persuade it to direct for issuance of notices to the opposite parties on the contempt petition now after a lapse of about 11 years, since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in January, 1993. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the contempt petition has become infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. 16. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Petition dismissed. .