Heard.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5698 (SS) of 2003, whereby the writ Court while allowing the writ petition directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 11.09.2002, the date when the services of juniors to him were regularized.
From the record, it comes out that first time, the instant contempt petition was entertained by this Court on 28.07.2011. On the said date, learned Counsel for the contempt petitioner had sought three days' time for filing supplementary affidavit. Thereafter the case was adjourned on several times on the request of learned Counsel for contempt petitioner, therefore, cognizance has not yet been taken by the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that 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.
It is relevant to add that identical question, which is involved in the present contempt petition, has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Islamuddin Vs. Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari and another, 2009 UPLBEC (3) 2722, where two questions were framed, which reads as under :
"Para 1. This matter has come up before us pursuant to the reference made by Hon'ble single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2006, formulating the following two questions to be answered by a larger Bench : (i) Whether the decision in Pallav Seth case, (2001) 7 SCC 549, can be construed so as to apply all the principles enshrined in the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act (except Section 17 thereof) and as to whether the same can be made applicable to proceedings to be initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers for initiating contempt of its Court or the contempt of its subordinate Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, has the power to condone and waive the delay in initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act."
The aforesaid questions were answered by the Division Bench in para-76, which reads as under :
"Para 76. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred by the Hon'ble Single Judge in negative and hold that for the purpose of Section 20 of Act 1971, the Act, 1963 and its provisions (except-Section 17) have no application whatsoever. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth (supra) does not make Section 5 of 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 Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
From the aforesaid proposition, it would be evident that even the Court is not vested with the power to condone the delay in such matters. Similar view has been taken in Prabhat Chandra Jain Vs. Sri Navneet Sehgal, Chairman U.P. Jalnigam and another, Contempt No. 383 of 2011 decided on 3.3.2011.
Needless to say that the party to a dispute should agitate his right and seek appropriate remedy promptly and should not sleep over his right. Here the petitioner remained in deep slumber for considerable long time. By a catena of decisions, it has been settled that delay defeats equity and Court comes to rescue of only those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights. It may be added that from the order-sheet, it reflects that the petitioner has only sought adjournments on various grounds instead of pressing the contempt petition on merit for taking cognizance.
For the reasons aforesaid, the contempt petition is dismissed having time barred.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 akverma