V Siva Sunil Kumar Reddy Vs Sai Prasad IAS

V SIVA SUNIL KUMAR REDDY, S/O HARANADHA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O D NO NO 16/111/1521, KRISHNA AVENUE, HARANADHAPURAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SAI PRASAD IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI DESI NAYAK, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶15

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶16

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Court Act, for their willful disobedience of the order of this Hon hie Court dated 10.11.2023 in W.P. No.23002 of 2022 and to pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

2

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filling of the certified copies of orders dated 10.11.2023 in W.P. No.23002 of 2022 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the above Contempt Case against the order dated 10.11.2023 in W.P.No. 23002 of 2022 and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.GANIPAY SUNEEL KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

I.A.No.2 of 2026

¶30

in/and

¶31

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 335/2026

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the contempt case.

¶34

The contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23002 of 2022.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A.No.2 of 2026

¶37

is filed seeking to condone the delay in filing the contempt case and the contempt case is filed alleging that orders of this Court dated 10.11.2023 are not complied with as directed by this Court.

¶38

This Contempt has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt. There is 380 days delay in filing the contempt case.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2026 to condone the delay in filing the contempt petition, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶40

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as

¶41

under:

¶42

4

¶43

“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”.

¶44

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 neither provides for condonation of delay in filing the contempt petition nor applies the provision of the Limitation Act, Section 5 or any other provision for condonation of delay.

¶45

In S.Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah¹ the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated. It was further held that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed and held that the express negative phraseology used in Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Court’s power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein.

¶46

10. Para Nos. 53 & 54 in S.Tirupathi Rao (supra) read as under:

¶47

“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

¶48

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764

¶49

5

¶50

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 punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.

¶51

54. An action for contempt - though instituted through a petition or an application - is essentially in the nature of original proceedings, as held by this Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav {(1997) 3 SCC 11); a fortiori, a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the court's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the expression “date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed” as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, the high courts ought to be wary of crafty and skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof.”

¶52