RAJEEV KUMAR PANDEYversusT.K. SHIBU

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

       CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6739 of 2026

Rajeev Kumar Pandey
                                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
T.K. Shibu
                                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :    Krishna Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :

Court No. - 53
                     HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 19.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 3762 of 2009, the
order whereof is quoted hereinunder:

     "Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent No.1. Shri Srikant
     Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of respondent. Nos.2 top 5 They are
     granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have
     one week, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 11th May, 2009.

     On the death of his father serving in the Corporation in harness the
     petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. Now the
     respondents seck to recover the amount due against the petitioner's father
     from the petitioner's salary. It is contended that the General Manager had
     dropped the enquiry after the death of petitioner's father. Prima facie the
     petitioner cannot be made liable for the loss, which may have been
     caused by petitioner's father, as he died before the departmental enquiry
     establishing the guilt could be concluded.

     As an interim measure, the respondents are restrained from recovering
     any amount from the petitioner's salary for the loss alleged to be caused
     by petitioners father, treating it to be the debit amount of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite the existence of
the said order, recovery has been made on 04.01.2022 of an amount of Rs.
98,560/-, thus, the opposite parties have committed contempt.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under:
                                                                 CAPL No. 6739 of 2026
                                    2

      "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. The language employed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act itself
provides that 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.

6. In the present case, the contempt application has been filed in the year 2026
whereas the deduction/ violation of the order of the writ court was done on 04.01.2022
that too after a period of four years beyond the statutory period.

7. In Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian, 2001 (7) SCC 549, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in para-41 observed as under:

      "41. One of the principles underlying the law of limitation is that a
      litigant must act diligently and not sleep over its rights. In this
      background such an interpretation should be placed on Section 20 of the
      Act which does not lead to an anomalous result causing hardship to the
      party who may have acted with utmost diligence and because of the
      inaction on the part of the Court a contemner cannot be made to suffer.
      Interpreting the section in the manner canvassed by Mr. Venugopal would
      mean that the Court would be rendered powerless to punish even though
      it may be fully convinced of the blatant nature of a contempt having been
      committed and the same having been brought to the notice of the Court
      soon after the committal of the contempt and within the period of one year
      of the same. Section 20, therefore, has to be construed in a manner which
      would avoid such an anomaly and hardship both as regards the litigant
      as also by placing a pointless fetter on the part of the Court to punish for
      its contempt. An interpretation of Section 20, like the one canvassed by
      the Appellant, which would render the constitutional power of the Courts
      nugatory in taking action for contempt even in cases of gross contempt,
      successfully hidden for a period of one year by practising fraud by the
      contemner would render Section 20 as liable to be regarded as being in
      conflict with Article 129 and/or Article 215. Such a rigid interpretation
      must therefore be avoided."

8. Further recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M.
Lingamaiah & Ors.; 2024 INSC 544 this Court had reiterated the said law.

9. Confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
                                                                                                CAPL No. 6739 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    liberty to raise these questions in the pending writ petition.

                                    10. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it
                                    open to the applicant to raise the said issues in the pending writ petition.

                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Ashu
                                                                                               (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad