Contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt. Timeliness is critical; a late application will be rejected without further inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Devendra Dahma, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records.

2. Present contempt application has been filed by the applicant under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971) seeking consent/permission to initiate criminal contempt proceeding under section 16 of the Act, 1971 against opposite party/contemnor, who was the Presiding Officer in Appeal No.353/2024 which was filed against an order cancelling a fair price shop license.

3. It is alleged that the applicant was appointed as Special Counsel Revenue in Commissionerate, Prayagraj and joined on 03.04.2021. On 21.03.2024 the applicant appeared on behalf of the State in Appeal No.353/2024 (Kavita Devi vs. State of U.P.) which was filed against an order cancelling a fair price shop license. It is being claimed that he requested the Court to give opportunity of hearing on the question of admission and grant of stay, however, the Presiding Officer of the Court on 21.3.2024 while discharging judicial function openly said in the Court that it was not necessary to hear Government Advocate and admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of order cancelling fair price shop license of the appellant. It is alleged that the alleged contemnor misbehaved and insulted the applicant in open court lowering the prestige of the applicant. The complaint in this regard was lodged by the petitioner with the Commissioner of Prayagraj, Division Prayagraj as well as with the Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and also to the Under Secretary, State Government. It is further alleged that he has received one letter dated 23.07.2024 from Commissioner Prayagraj, Division Prayagraj for appearing before him on 26.07.2024 for personal hearing. Consequently, the applicant appeared before him and on 30.07.2024 filed his statement alongwith affidavit as well as affidavit of two witnesses, the advocates who were present in the Court on 21.03.2024. Ultimately, an application was filed before the learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025 in respect of the incident dated 21.03.2024 for the purpose of referring the matter for making motion of initiation of criminal contempt against the alleged contemnor-Shri Pushpraj Singh. Learned Advocate General vide order dated 23.04.2025 rejected the application and consent sought was refused.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the one of the grounds taken by the learned Advocate General for refusing to grant consent is that the application dated 16.04.2025 filed before him was beyond one year period from 21.03.2024, which is the date on which the opposite party had allegedly made statement against the applicant. It was thus held that as the limitation for filing the application expired on 21.03.2025, therefore, the application was barred by limitation. The other ground for rejection of the application by learned Advocate General was based on the interpretation of Section 15 of the Act, 1971. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. Sumermal Misrimal Bafna , reported in (2016) 9 SCC 439 . It was held by learned Advocate General that the applicant has also no legal right under Section 15 (2) of the Act, 1971 to apply before the Advocate General for grant of consent in a case, if any criminal contempt of a subordinate Court.

5. In our opinion, if the application filed before the learned Advocate General on 16.04.2025 was beyond time and was hit by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, no other question would arise for c