Court No. - 38
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5959 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singhal And 8 Others Opposite Party :- Prashant Tiwari, Sub Divisional Magistrate Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri Swapnil Sinha, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Reported delay in filing this contempt application is 726 days and is reported to be in time uptill 15.12.2019.
The learned counsel for the applicants has argued on the application for condonation of delay and has relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.M.W (C) No.3 of 2020 to contend that during the period of COVID pandemic, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 would stand excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed under the various enactment and any other laws, which provide periods for limitation for instituting proceedings. It is contended that the applicant is an old person and he is more susceptible to infection and, therefore, out of fear, he could not approach this Court in time for filing of this application.
The period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for actions for contempt is one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
In this contempt application, non-compliance of the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.31423 of 2018 is alleged. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, it has been stated that despite notice by service of the certified copy of the order on the opposite party, no action was taken by him to comply with the order of the Court. It is stated that after the first representation dated 15.10.2018, another representation was filed on 10.12.2019 which also was not considered by the opposite party. The order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Court is as under:-
"This writ petition has been instituted by the nine petitioners. They all belong to the same village, namely, Mangupura, City and District Moradabad. Their grievance is that their application to the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has not been considered despite several representations.
The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application made by the petitioners on 24.2.2018 may be directed to be considered in accordance with law.
Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the fifth respondent.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the application dated 24.2.2018 moved by the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
We make it clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case. The authority concerned shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs."
In the aforesaid order, the time prescribed to consider the application dated 24.02.2018 by the third respondent therein was a period of two months from the date of communication of that order. Annexure-2 contains the representation dated 15.10.2018 of the applicants which, as per the photocopy of the postal receipt affixed thereto, appears to have been despatched on 24.10.2018. The representation was despatched by post from Moradabad to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Moradabad and, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, notice would be presumed to have been served within a period of one week from the date of despatch. The two months time prescribed in the order of the writ Court would have concluded by 31.12.2018. As such, the period of one year prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act would expire no later than 31.12.2019. Thus, this contempt application cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the delay and the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, this delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the contempt application is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 SK (Jayant Banerji, J.)