Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hotam Singh Yadav vs Smt Ruchika Chouhan on 24 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707
1 CONC-5394-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 5394 of 2025
HOTAM SINGH YADAV
Versus
SMT RUCHIKA CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Pathak and Shri Mudit Goswami- Advocates for the
petitioner.
ORDER
1. Petitioner has preferred this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the willful disobedience of order dated 26.9.2022 passed in WP No.15565 of 2021(PIL).
2. Heard counsel for petitioner on admission as well as on the point of limitation also.
3. From perusal of the order passed by Writ Court, it is evident that order has been passed on 26.9.2022 and this contempt petition has been filed on 15.9.2025, which appears to be filed after more than two years. Petitioner has not filed any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707 2 CONC-5394-2025 RTI application before respondent on 5.9.2023 and some information has been provided to him. Thereafter, he filed another application on 28.1.2025 before Collector, Gwalior and vide letter dated 22.7.2025 his application has been forwarded to CEO, Gwalior Development Authority (in short 'GDA'). Writ Court has directed CEO of Gwalior Development Authority to construct road within three months as per sanctioned map of Town and Country Planning, but same had not been constructed till now. Hence, it is prayed that this contempt petition is within time limit and notice be issued against respondents.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. But, in the instant matter writ Court had passed the order on 26.9.2022 and directed the CEO, GDA to construct road within a period of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707 3 CONC-5394-2025 three months. Therefore, if aforesaid road was not constructed by respondents within the period, then petitioner has a right to file contempt petition within the stipulated limitation period, but after lapse of more than two years, no contempt petition has been filed by petitioner and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Petitioner did not assign any good and valid reason for aforesaid delay. Although, petitioner preferred a separate application before Collector, Gwalior, but it may create a separate cause of action and filing of any other application after lapse of stipulated limitation period cannot automatically extend the period for limitation and it cannot be said that there is no continuing wrong or contempt.
8. It is also submitted by petitioner that appellant 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707 4 CONC-5394-2025 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."
9. 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 limitation period for contempt proceedings.
10. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260 in paragraph Nos.18 to 20 has held as under:-
"18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.
19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as under: "The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the interest of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707 5 CONC-5394-2025 State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
20. In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature."
11. Hon'ble the apex Court again in the case of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 in paragraph No.12 has held as under:-
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23707 6 CONC-5394-2025 on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute."
12. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has preferred this contempt petition after two years and three months without any application for condonation of delay. Hence, this contempt petition is time barred and petitioner has failed to explain day to day delay for non-filing of contempt petition. Therefore, such huge delay of more than two years is not properly explained by petitioner and ignorance of law is not an excuse.
13. Consequently, this contempt petition is dismissed being time barred.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE R Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 9/26/2025 11:16:20 AM