Jagdamba Prasad Pathak vs Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Contempt Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for punishing the opposite party for having allegedly committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 10th May, 2004 (Annexure 2 to the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52001 of 2002.

I have heard Sri Naval Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and perused the record.

It is evident from a perusal of the averments made in the Contempt Petition and the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition including the said order dated 10th May, 2004 that the said order dated 10th May, 2004 was an interim order passed during the pendency of the said writ petition subject to certain conditions. It was, inter-alia, clearly mentioned in the said order dated 10th May, 2004 that in the event of default of any of the conditions referred to in the said order dated 10th May, 2004, the said order dated 10th May, 2004 would stand automatically vacated.

It is thus evident that in case, the conditions mentioned in the said order dated 10th May, 2004 were not complied with, as alleged by the petitioner-applicant, the said order dated 10th May, 2004 stood automatically vacated. As such, it was open to the petitioner- applicant to pursue appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum consequent to the vacation of the said order dated 10th May, 2004.

No contempt can be said to have been committed by the Opposite Party on account of the failure of the Opposite Party to comply with the conditions laid down in the said order dated 10th May, 2004.

Even otherwise, the said order passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition was passed on 10th May, 2004 while the present Contempt Petition has been filed on 12th August 2005, i.e., after the expiry of one year since the passing of the said order dated 10th May 2004.

As such, the Contempt Petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is reproduced below :

"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-No court shall initiate any proceedings for 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".

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Contempt Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.