S. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner-applicant, inter-alia, praying that the Opposite Party be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by allegedly disobeying the order dated 6th March, 2003 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47951 of 2000. Relevant portion of the said order dated 6th March, 2003 (Annexure 4 to the Contempt Petition) is reproduced below : "in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner may file a representation before respondent No. 1. In case any representation is filed, it may be decided by the aforesaid respondent by a reasoned order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Needless to add respondent No. 1 while passing order on the representation of the petitioner will also afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to respondent No. 3 also. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with his representation. The aforesaid respondent after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. " From a perusal of the averments made in the Contempt Petition and enclosures thereto, it appears that pursuant to the said order dated 6th March, 2003, the petitioner-applicant made a representation to the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur on 4th June, 2003. Copy of the said representation bearing endorsement of receipt dated 4th June, 2003 has been filed as Annexure 5 to the Contempt Petition. In view of the directions given in the said order dated 6th March, 2003, the said representation was to be decided within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation. As the said representation was received by the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur on 4th June, 2003, the said representation ought to have been decided by 4th September, 2003. Therefore, cause-of- action for filing Contempt Petition arose to the petitioner-applicant on 5th September, 2003. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is as follows: "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. " In view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is not open to any Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, as noted above, the cause-of-action arose on 5th September, 2003. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contempt Petition ought to have been filed within one year from 5th September, 2003, i. e. , on or before 5th September, 2004. The present Contempt Petition has been filed on 8th September, 2005. Evidently, the Contempt Petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant that Kanpur Development Authority issued a notice dated 9th October, 2003 fixing date for hearing of the matter on 13th October, 2003. It is submitted that in view of the said notice issued to the petitioner-applicant, period of one year contemplated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. , 1971 is to be computed from the date of the said notice, namely, 9th October, 2003 or from the date for hearing fixed in the said notice, namely, 13th October, 2003. Even if the period of one year is to be computed with effect from the date of the said notice, namely, 9th October, 2003 or from the date fixed for hearing, namely, 13th October, 2003, the said period also expired in October, 2004. Hence, the present Contempt Petition filed on 8th September, 2005 is evidently beyond the period of one year , as contemplated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant next submits that a new scheme has been floated by Kanpur Development Authority. The petitioner-applicant, it is submitted, applied for allotment of plot under the said new scheme and made deposit of Rs. 75000/- on 29-3-2005, but the petitioner-applicant has not been given allotment of plot under the said new scheme, and hence the Opposite Party has committed contempt of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant has referred to paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the Contempt Petition. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and I find myself unable to accept the same. From a perusal of the averments made in the aforementioned paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the Contempt Petition, it is evident that the said averments were not the subject-matter of the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47951 of 2000, hence, the alleged non-allotment of plot under the new scheme cannot be said to be the disobedience of the order dated 6th March, 2003 passed in the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47951 of 2000. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Contempt Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. .;