IN T 106 Davinder G Ajay Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU order dated this Court Haryana an Ambala-cum “…consider 12) within si after giving consideratio benefit claim the consequ thereafter. claimed by speaking or COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No.1959 of Date of decision : der Goel Versus Singh Tomar, IAS and others AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Adeep Sharma, Advocate w Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Adv Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., I GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition has be dated 24.1.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed Court in CWP-1886-2019 titled as “D na and others”, whereby respondent cum-Deputy Commissioner Ambala, sider and decide the representation da hin six weeks from the receipt of the c ving an effective opportunity of hearing ration, the competent authority reach claimed by the petitioner is admissibl sequential relief be allowed to him, ter. However, in case the competent by the petitioner is not admissible g order be passed in the matter.” 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 959 of 2026 (O & M) sion :-27.04.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents NIDHI GUPTA cate with al, Advocate and . A.G., Haryana. has been filed alleging violation of passed by a predecessor Bench of as “Davinder Goel vs. State of ndent No.2-Estate Officer, Sadar bala, Ambala City was directed to n dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure P- the certified copy of the judgment aring to the petitioner. In case, on eaches to the conclusion that the ssible to him, in such eventuality, im, within a period of six weeks ent authority feels that the relief ble or made out, in that case, a VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.27 20.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document raised a pre present con limitation in which presc after the exp is alleged to 24.01.2019, beyond the there being Section 20 contempt pr the date of well beyond barred by lim Hon’ble Su Law Finder COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) At the very outset, learned cou a preliminary objection with regard t nt contempt petition on the ground t tion in view of Section 20 of the Con prescribes that no Court shall initiate a the expiry of a period of one year from th ged to have been committed. It has been contended that the .2019, whereas the present contempt peti d the prescribed period of limitation i.e. being any sufficient explanation for such This Court finds merit in the afo n 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, mpt proceedings cannot be initiated afte ate of alleged disobedience. The presen beyond the said statutory period i.e. aro d by limitation. I find support in my view fro ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao Finder Doc Id#2618555 wherein it is he “Delay in filing a co adequately justified, and the limitation period stipulated unde of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Ac for actions for contempt - allowing a review petition witho period was erroneous - The con limitation as it was filed more th and no sufficient cause for delay 2 d counsel for the respondents has gard to the maintainability of the und that the same is barred by e Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, itiate any proceedings for contempt rom the date on which the contempt hat the writ Court order is dated pt petition has been instituted much i.e. around seven years, without r such delay. the aforesaid preliminary objection. s Act, 1971 clearly mandates that d after the expiry of one year from present petition, having been filed i.e. around seven years, is ex facie w from a recent judgment of the i Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : it is held that: contempt petition should be the court must adhere to the under Section 20 of the Contempt ts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation The High Court's judgment ithout adhering to the limitation contempt petition was barred by re than five years after the order, delay was shown - The concept of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.27 20.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document record a cop passed in c further been petitioner, a name of the considered o limitation, directions is same is dism April 27, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep COCP-1959-2026 (O & M) "continuing wrong" must be established to overcome the limi Even otherwise, learned counse d a copy of the speaking order dated 31. d in compliance with the directions issu r been submitted that the said order wa oner, as is evident from the endorsemen of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.3 in th In view of the aforesaid factual dered opinion that not only is the presen tion, but the respondents also appear ions issued by the writ Court dated 24.1. Accordingly, finding no merit dismissed. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, al , 2026 Asija er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No 3 be adequately pleaded and limitation bar.” ounsel for the State has placed on ted 31.12.2019, stated to have been ns issued by the writ Court. It has der was duly communicated to the rsement made thereon, wherein the in the list of recipients. actual position, this Court is of the present contempt petition barred by ppear to have complied with the 24.1.2019 (Annexure P-1). merit in the present petition, the any, also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.27 20.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document