Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9219 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 402 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Ayoob Siddhiqi Alias Mohd. Ayoob Opposite Party :- Sri Shaurabh Shukla, Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Akarbarpur Ambedkar Nagar And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Writ A No. 6644 of 2023. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- "5. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party No.4 i.e. Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Akabarpur, Ambedkar Nagar. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority." Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 was served upon the respondent on 06.10.2023 and eight weeks' period expired on 06.12.2023 and the present contempt application has been preferred after about one year and two months of the expiry of one year period from the date, cause of action arose. 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 06.12.2024 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 07.02.2025 i.e. after about two 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 07.02.2025 i.e. after about two 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 :- 13.2.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench