COCP No. 205 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 205 of 2008 Date of decision: July 15,2009 Zila Parishad Ludhiana ..Petitioner. Versus Smt. Mamta Mehta wife of Balkishan Mehta ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: None .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, the respondent was in arrears of licence fee. The proceedings for recovery of this amount were initiated against the respondent and the recovery was ordered to be effected as arrears of land revenue. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent filed Criminal Misc. No. 33655-M of 2002 in this Court seeking anticipatory bail, in which this Court vide order dated 28.8.2002 passed the following order:- “Criminal Misc.No.33655-M of 2002 (O&M) Present: Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate Mr. G.S.Gill, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Counsel for the State submits that warrants of arrest have not been issued against the petitioner. In view of this statement, counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage. Counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner will appear before the appropriate authorities. The petition is accordingly disposed of. August 28,2002 Sd/- Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judge.” According to the petitioner, the respondent has not complied with the aforesaid undertaking given by her before this Court as she has not COCP No. 205 of 2008 2 appeared before the appropriate authority in spite of the notice dated 24.5.2007 issued to her vide Annexure P-3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not a party to Criminal Misc. No. 33655 of 2002, in which the alleged undertaking was given by the respondent and there was no violation of the undertaking of order on the part of the respondent. I have perused the record of this petition. Criminal Misc.No.33655 of 2002 was decided by this Court on 28.8.2002, whereas it has been alleged that the respondent was asked to appear vide notice dated 24.5.2007 to which she has not responded. Thus the contempt proceedings have been filed beyond the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971. Moreover, the order was passed in the Criminal Misc. filed by the respondent seeking anticipatory bail and if any of the condition has not been complied with by the respondent, then in that eventuality, appropriate application could have been moved before the competent court for cancellation of the aforesaid anticipatory bail. In view thereof, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. At this stage, Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Madan Sindhu, Advocate for the respondent have appeared for the parties. Rule discharged. July 15, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE