IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 5887 of 2025 VISHWANATH SINGH GURJAR Versus SHRI DR RAJESH RAJORA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aditya Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER Heard on I.A.No.7706/2025, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 651 days.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is having recurring cause of action as financial benefit are always having recurring cause of action as decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.R Gupta vs. Union of India and others. Respondent has never extended the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner, therefore, he prays that delay of 651 days be condoned.

3. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is relevant for instant case provides 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."

4. Counsel for petitioner contended that constitutional powers contained under Article 215 of Constitution of India could not in any way be stultified or curtailed for any act of Parliament including Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Ors reported in AIR 2001 SC 2763 and the judgment of Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madya Pradesh, 1992 AIR 904.

5. But, in the instant matter writ Court had disposed of the writ petition by order dated 14.12.2022 with direction to the respondents to release the pension and pensionary dues on the touchstone thereof, with no further loss of time, in any case, not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Therefore, if aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondents within the period, then petitioner has a right to file contempt petition within the stipulated limitation period, but after lapse of about 651 days this contempt petition has been filed by petitioner. Petitioner did not assign any good and valid reason for aforesaid delay.

6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed this petition with delay, because he has no knowledge about the law, but ignorance of law is not an excuse. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of P. K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 in paragraph No.5 has held as under:-

"This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, Kollam on 30.10.1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Law Secretary and the Advocate General and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that there was no scope for filing the appeal but lateron, despite the opinion referred to above, the appeal was filed as late as on 8.1.1996 without disclosing why it was being filed. The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days."

7. Petitioner has preferred citation of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth (Supra) which was passed in the year 2001 and order in the case of Pritam Pal (Supra) was passed on 19.2.1992. Thereafter, Hon'ble Apex Court has developed law regarding