# Paras Nath Yadav v. Sri Ramendra Tripathi and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 981
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-09-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2642 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/paras-nath-yadav-v-sri-ramendra-tripathi-and-another-40527
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Mode of
Service-Application invited by U.P. Public
Service Commission-with stipulation-it
should be reached at Commission office
by Registered Post or by hand upto 5
p.m. on before 22.07.02-application send
from 100 km. Away from office of
Commission through Regd. Post on
14.07.05-reached on 28.07.2005-refusal
by Commission-held-proper when-only
one mode given one has no alternate,
but to fallow the same-at the same time
if there are more than one mode and
failed
to
exercise
other
mode-the
responsibility
lies
with
sender-No
equitable justice can be rendered.

Held: Para 9

Therefore, what we get from the above
analysis? We get the answer that either
in the law or in the contract or in the
advertisement
or
in
the
necessary
document if mode is prescribed, such
mode will be the guiding principle in
determining the issue as regards service.
If the mode is one, one has no other
alternative but to follow the same. If the
mode is more than one then the
alternative mode can be exercised. If

## Text

3 All] Paras Nath Yadav V. Sri Ramendra Tripathi and another
981
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2642
of 2005

Paras Nath Yadav

...Applicant
Versus
Sri Ramendra Tripathi and others

 ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri B.N.Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Contempt
of
Court
Act
1971-S-20Limitation
for
filing
the
contempt
application-direction issued on 11.3.99
to decide the claim within six weekscause
of
action
arase
in-May
99contempt petition filed on 23.8.2000explanation
representation
after
representation-held-after the elapsed of
statutory period of one year-cannot be
enlarged.

Held: Para 8

In my opinion, the period of one year
contemplated under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, having
expired
some
time
in
May,
2000,subsequent representations made
by the petitioner-applicant from time to
time,
as
alleged
by
the
petitioner
applicant, will not enlarge the period
mentioned in Section 20 of the Contempt
of Court Act, 1971.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.)

1. The present Contempt Petition
has
been
filed,
inter-alia,
by
the
petitioner-applicant on the ground of
alleged non-compliance of the order dated
11thMarch, 1999 (Annexure 1 to the
Affidavit accompanying the Contempt
Petition) passed by this Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition 7261 of 1999.

2. Relevant portion of the said order
dated 11thMarch, 1999 is quoted below:

"As the question involved is to trivial
to drag on unnecessarily before this
Court, hence after hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Standing Counsel I dispose of this
writ petition by issuing direction to the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pass
appropriate order on the application of the
petitioner within six weeks from the date
of presentation of the copy of this order."

3. From a perusal of the averments
made in paragraph 1! Of the Affidavit
accompanying the Contempt Petition and
Annexure
2
to
the
Affidavit
accompanying the Contempt Petition, it
appears that a certified copy of the said
order dated 11thMarch, 1999 was sent to
the Zila Adhikari, Basti and the Up Zila
Adhikari, Basti by Registered Post on 20th
March, 1999.

4. In view of the directions given in
the said order dated 11thMarch, 1999, the
application of the petitioner was to be
decided within six weeks of the receipt of
the said certified copy of the order dated
11th March, 1999. The said period of six
weeks evidently expired some time in
May, 1999. Consequently, cause of action
for filing Contempt Petition arose some
time in May, 1999. In the circumstances,
the Contempt Petition ought have been
filed within one year i.e. by May, 2000, in
view of the provisions of Section 20 of
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
5. The present Contempt Petition
has been filed on 23rd August, 2005.
Therefore, the Contempt Petition is
clearly not maintainable in view of the
provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 which lays down as
under:
"20. Limitation for actions for
contempt.-No court shall initiate any
proceedings for 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."

6. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner applicant that
the petitioner-applicant has been making
representations from time to time to the
authorities concerned, but the authorities
concerned did not comply with the said
order dated 11th March, 1999.

7. I have considered the submission
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner-applicant.

8. In my opinion, the period of one
year contemplated under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, having
expired
some
time
in
May,
2000,subsequent representations made by
the petitioner-applicant from time to time,
as alleged by the petitioner applicant, will
not enlarge the period mentioned in
Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971.

9. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the Contempt Petition is liable
to be dismissed, and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Application rejected.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57310 of 2005

Pramod Kumar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.A. Qadeer
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Mode of
Service-Application invited by U.P. Public
Service Commission-with stipulation-it
should be reached at Commission office
by Registered Post or by hand upto 5
p.m. on before 22.07.02-application send
from 100 km. Away from office of
Commission through Regd. Post on
14.07.05-reached on 28.07.2005-refusal
by Commission-held-proper when-only
one mode given one has no alternate,
but to fallow the same-at the same time
if there are more than one mode and
failed
to
exercise
other
mode-the
responsibility
lies
with
sender-No
equitable justice can be rendered.

Held: Para 9

Therefore, what we get from the above
analysis? We get the answer that either
in the law or in the contract or in the
advertisement
or
in
the
necessary
document if mode is prescribed, such
mode will be the guiding principle in
determining the issue as regards service.
If the mode is one, one has no other
alternative but to follow the same. If the
mode is more than one then the
alternative mode can be exercised. If