Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5384 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 219 of 2025 Applicant :- Kunvar Rajendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- Sudhir Rai, Consolidation OfÏcer (Naveen) Gonda Counsel for Applicant :- Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No. 4383 of 2022. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- "Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No.53 T.B. Under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act (Kunwar Jadunath Singh and Others Vs. Ishwar Saran Singh and others) most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of eight months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. " As alleged by learned counsel for the applicant, the copy of the judgment and order was served on 01.12.2022 but neither the copy of the representation or any document has been enclosed in support of his submission that the copy was served to the respondent. If the Court presumes that the date as stated on afÏdavit regarding service of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2022 upon the respondent, then eight months' period had come to an end on 31.07.2023 and for the first time, thus the cause of action arose on the said date, whereas the contempt application has been filed after about one year and six months. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971), 'no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which, the contempt is alleged to have been committed'. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971 as one year period had expired on 31.07.2024 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 20.01.2025 i.e. after about more than five and half months, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Act, 1971. In the case of Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr. [2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549] does not make Section 5 of the Act 1963 applicable and would not confer power upon the Court to condone or waive delay where proceedings of contempt are sought to be initiated under the Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In view of above, the present case is barred by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, hence the same is dismissed having approached the Court on 20.01.2025 i.e. after about more than five and half months from the date of expiry of one year period from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench