Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the Respondents herein for the willful, deliberate and wanton violation of the Order Dt 10.01.2024 of this Honble High Court passed in the WP. No.22777of 2022, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 191 days in filing the Contempt Case and pass

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

I.A.No.1 of 2026

in/and

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 756 OF 2026

ORDER:

1. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 191 days in filing the present contempt case.

2. The contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22777 of 2022.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 191 days in filing contempt case and the contempt case is filed alleging that orders of this Court dated 10.01.2024 are not complied with as directed by this Court.

5. The present contempt case has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt.

6. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt is started within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt alleged to have been committed and the contempt should be filed within a period of one year from the date when the contemptuous act said to have been committed by the respondents. Admittedly, this Contempt has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt.

7. For better understanding, 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”.

8. In S.Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah¹2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, 2026:APHC:21036 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.

9. Para Nos. 53 & 54 in S.Tirupathi Rao (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 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, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), 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.

54. An action for contempt - though instituted through a petition or an application - is essentially in the nature of original proceedings, as held by this Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav {(1997) 3 SCC 11); a fortiori, a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative inju