Navita Chhikara v. Vineet Garg, Ias, And Another
!"
#$%$%!#& '(( ()'%!##$*&+*!"$)#&, #,-!"#!$, .
/((
!
!! !
) * +) , ! "# #"$ %& !
-
% . (!
(
+!
/
" $ %#%#
! " #% "$ !
-
0 0 !
! ! (! #1 #2 %#%# 0
( !
3 ( ( !
( !!
0 !
(! #1 #2 %#%# (5 6 0 ( !
(
! ! 0 !
( 0 ! ! !
0 7( ! . (!
( +) , ! 0 . (!
! (
( ( 58 ( %9 #1 %#%26 0 ! 8!
. %9 #1 %#%2
( 8!
. %9 #1 %#%2 !! +/ : # 9% %#%2 0 ;
#< %#%2 0 )8 ! =(
!
3 ; %$ # %#%2
!
( =' .(
3 ; %$ # %#%2 ! +/ : %> >9 %#%2 !
:
+3
' (
: 1
4 +/ : %> >9 %#%2 : ( +) ,
< % %#%2 )<*
#> #> %#%<
! (
(
< ( ((
6
! ! %9 #1 %#%2
! %9 1 %#%2
! !!
+/ : %> >9 %#%2 )<* +! ! !
(
"
Furthermore, a contempt petition cannot lie after 5 years of the passing of order dated 16.7.2020. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 '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.' Thus, a contempt petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage in respect of order dated 16.7.2020.
7.
In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah and Others (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2618555 has held that:
"Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation for actions for contempt - The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown - The concept of "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar."
8.
Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present petition stands dismissed.
9.
Rule is discharged.
# Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
'(
)