Contempt proceedings must be initiated within one year of the alleged contempt, with no provision for delay condonation as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This contempt case has been filed alleging the willful disobedience of the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the writ Court in WP No.23499 of 2022.

3. The operative portion of the order reads as under :

8. The bills for payment were submitted in the year 2019 but are still unpaid to the petitioner, however, considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the partiers, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally with the following directions :

(a) The 5th respondent-Guduru Nagara Panchayat, shall upload the bills of the petitioner for the work in question, in CFMS portal within two (02) weeks from today;

(b) The 2nd respondent-Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, shall thereafter within a period of eight (8) weeks shall release the payable amount after due verification and scrutiny, to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment;

(c) The petitioner is granted liberty as prayed with respect to the claim of interest on delayed payment;

(d) The petitioner's claim for grant of interest for delayed payment, if the petitioner approaches the respondents, shall be duly considered by the competent authority/respondents within a month of the petitioner so approaching;

(e) The grant of time to the respondents as in (a) & (b) above on their request for payment, would not adversely affect the petitioner's claim for interest for the period from the date of entitlement for interest, under law, upto the date of actual payment;

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Para No.8(a) has been complied but no further proceedings were taken as in subsequent clauses of Para No.8.

5. This contempt has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt with respect to the directions under Para No.8.

6. As per the office report there is 298 days delay.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application being IA No.1 of 2024 to condone the delay in filing the contempt petition, under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT .

8. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as under :

"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".

9. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 neither provides for condonation of delay in filing the contempt petition nor applies the provision of the LIMITATION ACT , Section 5 or any other provision for condonation of delay.

10. In S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah , 2024 SCC Online SC 1764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated. It was further held that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed and held that the express negative phraseology used in Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Court's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein.

11. Para Nos.53 and 54 in S. Tirupathi Rao's case (supra), read as under :

"53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot