IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.5923 of 2024 Kalandi Charan Pati …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera 1, Advocate -Versus- Chakrabarti Singh Rathore and Others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 30.01.2026 04. 1. A preliminary objection is raised by learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors that the instant contempt application is hopelessly barred by limitation provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. The contempt application arises on an allegation that the alleged contemnors have willfully and deliberately violated the order/direction passed on 16.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.11440 of 2020 in not paying the compensation along with interest in the event of any construction is made on the land within two months from the date of production/ communication of the order. Page 2 of 5 3. It is not in dispute that the said order is duly communicated to the alleged contemnors but the instant contempt application is taken out alleging that despite having made known to the said order, the compliance has not been secured. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides the period of limitation for initiation of contempt proceeding within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 4. Admittedly, the instant contempt application is filed beyond one year from the date of the alleged contempt to have been committed. The Court put a time line within which the directions have to be complied with and the moment such time stipulated in the said order expires, it gives rise to a contemptuous act and the period of limitation provided under Section 20 of the said Act is start ticking. It is imperative on the part of the person to approach the Court alleging that its order has been duly violated within the period of limitation provided under Section 20 of the said Act. Even if, the High Court is conferred with the powers to punish for its own contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, yet the moment the Contempt of Courts Act have been promulgated incorporating the provision relating to the period of limitation within which the litigant must approach, the same has been given a primacy which can further be fortified from a three Judge Bench decision of the apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549. The three Judge Bench of the apex Court in the said decision observed “is true that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”. The three Judge Bench ultimately held that once the procedure of law or a validly enacted law is envisaged in an Act, the proceeding for contempt being a quashi criminal in nature, the punishment can be ordered by the Court is strictly adhering to the stringent provisions, therefor. The decision of the three Judge Bench rendered in Pallav Sheth (supra) is reiterated and restated in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in the following: “53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. 54. An action for contempt - though instituted through a petition or an application - is essentially in the nature of original proceedings, as held by this Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav43; a fortiori, a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the court's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the expression “date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed” as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, the high courts ought to be wary of crafty and skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof.” 5. Undisputedly, the instant contempt application is taken out beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 20 of the said Act and, therefore, we find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors. 6. The contempt petition is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy. Designation: SECRETARY Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.