IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 116 Inder Pal Singh Sh. Amit Yashvardhan, CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 21.8.2023 (Annexure P CRM-32417 another vs. State of Haryana” following observations : present contempt petition is barred by lim order dated 21.8.2023 is alleged whereas as per Section COCP-4002-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.4002 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision : Inder Pal Singh Versus Sh. Amit Yashvardhan, Superintendent of Police (SP), Hansi CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Parshant Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 21.8.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 32417-2023 in CRA-S-1015-SB-2005 titled as “Om Parkash and another vs. State of Haryana” whereby the application was allowed with the following observations :- “…For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. It is clarified that order of sentence/judgment of conviction and pendency of appeal shall not be hurdle in renewal It is further clarified that the weapon in question shall not be released to the applicant disposal of the appeal.” Learned counsel for the respondent esent contempt petition is barred by limitation and inasmuch violation of order dated 21.8.2023 is alleged whereas as per Section 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4002 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-12.08.2025 …..Petitioner Superintendent of Police (SP), Hansi …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana. Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated ordinate Bench of this Court in 2005 titled as “Om Parkash and whereby the application was allowed with the “…For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. It is clarified that order of sentence/judgment of conviction and pendency of appeal shall not be hurdle in renewal of Arms Licence. It is further clarified that the weapon in question shall not be released to the applicant-petitioner till the disposal of the appeal.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the itation and inasmuch violation of order dated 21.8.2023 is alleged whereas as per Section 20 of the Contempt VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt petition has to be filed within one year of the alleged violation. representation dated 01.5.2024 was filed before the respondents as reminder. However, copy of the alleged representation is not attached with the present contempt petition. petition is Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 2618555 justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. actions for contempt petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years a shown pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar.” petition stands August 12 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-4002-2025 (O & M) of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt petition has to be filed within one year of the alleged violation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation dated 01.5.2024 was filed before the respondents as reminder. However, copy of the alleged representation is not attached with the present contempt petition. Even assuming the said representation to have been made, the still barred by limitation. I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2618555 wherein it is held that: “Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section actions for contempt - The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown - The concept of "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar.” Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present petition stands Dismissed. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 12, 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt petition has to be filed within one year of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation dated 01.5.2024 was filed before the respondents as reminder. However, copy of the alleged representation is not attached with said representation to have been made, the I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : wherein it is held that: Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation for The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more fter the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was The concept of "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar.” Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document