- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. The applicant contends that he was prevented from offering "qurbani", which was a violation of his fundamental right to practice religion freely, guaranteed under the Constitution. Aggrieved he approached the District Administration and filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, on 14-10-2004 entailing his grievances and seeking a direction from the District Magistrate in this regard. Having failed to get his grievances redressed from the District Administration, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of on 3-12-2004 by the following order: "heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 14-10-2004 filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition by a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. "
(2.) THE applicant has narrated in this application that the certified copy of the said order was served through letter dated 14-12-2004 received in the office of the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, thereafter a reminder was sent on 14-1-2005 and he also approached the Parliamentary Affairs Minister of the State apprising him of the grievances which in turn was communicated by the opposite party No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. THE applicant also claims to have approached the Chief Minister and also His Excellency the President of India. It is alleged by the applicant that he was under a bona fide impression that his grievances would be attended to in the month of April 2005 as he was given an assurance that action will be taken in future. It is further alleged by him that when he went to the office of the District Magistrate in the month of May 2005, he was informed, that since the festival during which such practices are permitted, shall occur in the month of December 2005, therefore, he should approach then and that no order can be passed in anticipation. The applicant thereafter in paras 11 and 15 of this application has stated that he had been earlier advised by his local Counsel that he had no remedy left but in para 15 he contends that he met another Counsel practicing at Gorakhpur, the Headquarters of the Commissioner, who informed him that he should approach the Hon'ble Court by way of filing a contempt application and, accordingly, as per the aforesaid advice which was tendered to him on 7-11-2006, the applicant has approached this Court by means of this application. The Stamp Report has reported this application to be beyond time by 324 days as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 quoted herein below: "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. "
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant confronted with the aforesaid objection has urged, that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian & Ors. , reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549, coupled with the facts of this case, the objection taken by the Stamp Reporter deserves to be over ruled and the application be entertained as being within time. He contends that the wrong complained of is a continuing wrong and therefore, the cause of action is a recurring one. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, has invited the attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the said decision to contend that the conclusion drawn in the aforesaid decision widens the interpretation of Section 20, according to which the aforesaid provision has to be construed in a manner to avoid hardship of litigants and also by avoiding pointless fetters on the power of the Court to punish for its contempt. He has further urged that para 41 read with paras 43, 46 and 47 of the said judgment makes it clear that this Court has the power to proceed to entertain a contempt application even beyond the period of one year.;