Contempt application for non-compliance of a PIL direction to decide eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code was dismissed as barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, having been filed over nine months after the one-year limitation expired.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5040
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 208 of 2025
Applicant :- Chhathi Ram Verma Opposite Party :- Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Gonda District Gonda And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aviral Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard.
The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 14.12.2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 858 of 2022. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"In view of the submissions made by the learned State Law Officer, it is hereby directed that the authority concerned shall conclude and decide the pending eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months, as per its own merits, in accordance with law from the date of production of a copy of this order.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the representation was made on 19.01.2023 for compliance of judgment and order dated 14.12.2022 and three months' period had expired on 20.04.2023 but the order has not been complied with.
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 20.04.2024 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 21.01.2025 i.e. after about more than nine 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 21.01.2025 i.e. after about more than nine 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 :- 27.1.2025 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt application filed more than nine months after expiry of the one-year limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr.Relied on
[2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)]
Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors.Explained
[(2001) 7 SCC 549] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chhathi Ram Verma
Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Gonda District Gonda
Another
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
