Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 177782 (ALL)

KUMAR ADARSH v. SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR (I.A.S.) DISTT. MAGISTRATE DISTT. VARANASI AND ANOTHER

CAPL/3655/2025 · 2025-11-13

Manish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3655 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Writ C No. 1432 of 2024. The relevant part of the said judgment and order is quoted hereibelow:- " 4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of finally with direction to the respondent No.4, District Magistrate/Collector, Varanasi to execute the recovery certificate dated 09.06.2022 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished before him, unless there is any legal impediment in this regard, in which case he shall inform the petitioner in writing within the said period" Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the service of the copy of the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court dated 13.02.2024 on the respondent on 20.05.2025, the direction given in the writ petition has not been complied with that amounts to wilful disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the Writ Petition. Learned Standing counsel has submitted that the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the representation itself was moved before the respondent after the expiry of one year i.e. on 20.05.2025 and first time cause of action arose on 10/11.05.2024 and the present contempt application has been filed on 10.11.2025 i.e. after expiry of more than one year period from the date when the cause of action first arose. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971, 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. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is found that the order in the writ petition has been passed on 13.02.2024 wherein three months period was provided to execute the recovery certificate issued Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Nag, Shubham Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Kumar Adarsh .....Applicant(s) Shri Satyendra Kumar (I.A.S.) Distt. Magistrate Distt. Varanasi And Another .....Opposite Party(s) by the R.E.R.A.. The period had expired on 10/11.05.2024, the date on which the alleged non-compliance has been occurred but the applicant had made representation to the respondent alongwith the copy of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition on 20.05.2025 i.e. after the expiry of period of one year from the date of alleged non-compliance. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contempt petition is to be filed within a period of one year from the date the contempt has alleged to have been committed. For convenience, the Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No court shall initiate any proceedings of 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." Further, 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 the present case, the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 10/11.05.2024 whereas the present contempt petition has been preferred after the expiry of more than one year i.e. on 10.11.2025. Hence, it is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present contempt application is dismissed. November 13, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 3655 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench