Contempt proceedings must be initiated within one year from the date of alleged contempt per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A plea of "continuing wrong" cannot be mechanically accepted to bypass limitation without specific pleadings and grounds for exemption.

ORDER :

(Per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through virtual mode.

2. This Contempt petition has been filed alleging the willful disobedience of the judgment and the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.21758 of 2022. The writ petition was filed by the present petitioner.The petition was disposed of in the following terms:

“For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents herein to implement the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2044 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

3. As per the direction, the respondents were directed to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2018 passed in OA.No.2044 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

4. On a specific query made by this Court as to when the three months period expired, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period expired long back. He does not dispute that the contempt petition is not within the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short „the Act'), which reads as under:

“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. In S.Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah, (2024) 20 SCC 188 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time-limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt were actually initiated by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable. However, it was further held that since Section 20 also uses the expression “date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed” as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, the High Courts ought to be wary of crafty and skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act, which is a special law on the subject of contempt, does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act and in an appropriate case, it would be open to the party who has not petitioned the court within the period of one year, as stipulated in Section 20 of the Act, to seek exemption from the law of limitation in line with the principle flowing from Order 7 Rule 6 CPC., by showing the ground upon which such exemption is claimed. The Hon'ble Apex Court however further held that at the same time, it must be remembered that the court cannot grant exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The contempt proceedings being in the nature of original proceedings, akin to a suit, application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act to seek condonation of delay is excluded.

6. It is apt to refer para Nos.78 to 80 of S.Tirupathi Rao (supra) as under:

“78. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The st