Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 634 (ALL)

KANCHAN PRASAD v. GAYA PRASAD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

2004-03-22

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 read with Article 215 of the Constitution. It is, inter alia, prayed that the opposite parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 11-8-1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27186 of 1993, Kanchan Prasad and others v. Executive Engineer, Sarju Nahar Khand-I and others. The present contempt petition was filed on 1-11-1993. 2. On 2-11-1993, the Court passed the following order on the contempt petition: "list on 25-11-1993. In the meantime the petitioner may bring on record the material to establish that inspite of service of the order dated 11-8-1993, the respondents are deducting salary and not paying full salary to the petitioner. " 3. Pursuant to the said order dated 2-11-1993, the case was listed on 25-11-1993. On 25-11-1993 the Court passed the following order: "list revised. None appeared for the applicant. List it in ordinary course. " 4. Thereafter, it appears that the contempt petition was listed on 9-12-1993. On the said date, i. e. , 9-12- 1993, the Court passed the following under: "list in second week of January, 1994. " 5. It further appears that the contempt petition was again listed on 1-4-1994, when the Court passed the following order: "passed over on the request of Shri R. S. Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant. " 6. The contempt petition was, thereafter, listed on 3-3-2004. On the said date, i. e. 3-3-2004 the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant was not present, even when the cause list was revised, and in the circumstances, the case was passed over on the said date. 7. The case was again listed on 12-3-2004. On the said date, i. e. ,12-3-2004, the case was directed to be listed in the next cause list on prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant. 8. Pursuant to the said order dated 12-3-2004, the case is listed today. 9. It is evident from the above narration of various orders passed in the case that no order has so far been passed directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties on the contempt petition. 10. 8. Pursuant to the said order dated 12-3-2004, the case is listed today. 9. It is evident from the above narration of various orders passed in the case that no order has so far been passed directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties on the contempt petition. 10. 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 November, 1993. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 11. 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. " 12. In the present case, as per the averments made in paragraph 6 of the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in September, 1993. 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 11 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in September, 1993. 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. .