1 2026:CGHC:17755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 524 of 2026 1. Gyaneshwar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Laxman Dewangan Aged About 41 Years Occu.- Pump Operator, At Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, R/o Village Motipur, Ganeshpara, Ward No. 5, Lane No. 3, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Mr. Atul Vishvkarma Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2. Mr. Basavaraju S The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Diwesh Kumar, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 20/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.8.2018 passed in WPS No.766/2011. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.04.23 17:45:55 +0530 2 2. Perusal of pleadings made in contempt petition and documents annexed in support thereof, reveals that earlier petitioner has filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.8.2016, subject matter of this contempt petition, which came to be registered as Contempt Case (C) No.838/2019. Aforementioned petition came up for hearing on 27.8.2021 and in view of submission made by learned counsel for respondents therein that the order passed by the Court has been complied with even before filing of contempt petition by passing order dated 23.07.2019, the Court was satisfied that the order under contempt was complied with and therefore, disposed of contempt petition vide order dated 27.8.2021 reserving liberty to him to take recourse to law if he is still aggrieved of the decision of the respondent. 3. A copy of order dated 23.7.2019 based on which contempt petition was disposed of is annexed along with this contempt petition. Perusal of the order dated 23.7.2019 demonstrates that in compliance of the order under contempt, claim of petitioner for regularization in service was taken up for consideration in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government, according to which, benefit of regularization can be extended to only those who are engaged as daily wager prior to 1997. 3 4. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is invoked to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and to punish willful disobedience. Once the Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, upon consideration of material on record, had disposed of earlier contempt proceeding upon recording its satisfaction with regard to compliance of the order of the writ Court, the issue attains finality insofar as the alleged act of disobedience is concerned and a fresh contempt alleging non-compliance of the same order would not be maintainable as this would amount to review of the order passed in earlier contempt petition, which is not vested under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In other words, where contempt proceeding filed by applicant has attained finality and the contempt petition has been disposed of after recording reason with regard to compliance of the order of the writ court, a second contempt petition on the same set of facts and allegations would not be maintainable and amounts to abuse of process of law. 5. In case at hand, from the pleadings made in contempt petition it is evident that the petitioner seeks to re-agitate very same allegation of willful disobedience of the order dated 29.9.2018 passed in WPS No.766/2011 i.e. not regularizing service of petitioner, which in fact has already been considered and rejected by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation vide 4 order dated 23.07.2019 in compliance of the order under contempt. Petitioner has filed present contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the same order of the writ court without any additional facts and circumstances. Since earlier Contempt petition was closed by this Court, there cannot be a second contempt petition. This being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court, second contempt petition for the same alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 29.8.2018 passed in WPS No.766/2011, does not require further consideration. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. This contempt petition is filed on 25.3.2026 alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.08.2018. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for limitation for actions for contempt, according to which, no Court shall initiate the proceeding of contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Section 20 of the Act of 1972 reads thus:- “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." 5 7. In case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others, (2001) 7 SCC 549, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 8. In case of S. Tripathi Rao vs M. Lingamaiah and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1764, Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, has held as under:- "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 6 punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.” 9. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the present contempt petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-