Dismissed

Vineet Kumar Singh and Others v. Sri Deepak Kumar, Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024CAPL/3218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow dismissed a contempt application. The court held that the application was barred by the period of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it was filed more than one year after the cause of action arose.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Vineet Kumar Singh and Others vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Prin… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82278

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3218 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh And Others Opposite Party :- Sri Deepak Kumar, Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats,Anshuman Singh Rathore

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The Respondent No.3 Dr. Ram Chandra, District Inspector of Schools, Gonda is present and filed short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present contempt application in the light of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1971) as the present contempt petition has been preferred / filed on 9.8.2024 for alleged noncompliance of judgement and order dated 11.11.2020.

¶9

On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgement passed by the Writ Court is still intact and there is no appeal preferred by the respondent hence non-compliance on the part of the respondent is apparent and that is why a technical ground has been taken regarding maintainability of present contempt application.

¶10

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 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1971).

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is an admitted case of the applicant that for the first time the representation was made on 25.11.2020 to the respondents for compliance of judgement and order dated 11.11.2020 and for the first time the cause of action

¶12

arose on 10.01.2021 i.e. after the expiry of six weeks period. As per Section 20 of the Act, 1971 the contempt application was to be made within one year period i.e. by or prior to 10.01.2022 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 8.8.2024 i.e. about more than 2 years 11 months from the date of cause of action arose i.e. 10.01.2021. Hence, it is barred by limitation of Section 20 of the Act, 1971.

¶13

The present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Act, 1971 which provides that 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.

¶14

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present contempt application is dismissed.

¶15

Notice, if any, is hereby discharged.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to avail the remedy as permissible under the law, if he is still aggrieved. This liberty is always with the applicant for which no separate order is required.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 S. Kumar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vineet Kumar Singh and Others v. Sri Deepak Kumar, Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Singh and Others v. Sri Deepak Kumar, Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Ji Gaud S/O Shiv Kumar Gaud M/S Ramji Gaud Kalin Boonkai Vs the Prescribed Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act 1948/

M/S Arihant Infra Realtors Private Limited Thru. Authorised Signatory Vs Yogesh Srivastava

Anamika Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief General Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Sugar Industries and Cane Developemt

Sahab Deen vs A.D.J-13, Lucknow, District-Lucknow and 57 Others

Aakash Singh vs Addl. Prin. Judge IV Lko and Another

Dr. Uma Gupta vs Sri Awadesh Kumar Tiwari, Secy. Basic Education Shiksha ANUBHAG-1, Lko.