DIGAMBAR SON OF HARIBHAU PAJGADE Vs. NIKHIL WAGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed by the petitioner Digambar Haribhau Pajgade on 31st August, 2012 with a prayer to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, and along with the amended prayer to take suo motu action against them. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent nos. 1 to 10 had shown telecast on New Channel IBN Lokmat, Mumbai, from 30th to 31st August, 2011. The telecast flashed reads thus:-

(2.) It is stated in the petition that petitioner had applied to the Advocate General of Maharashtra on 19th June, 2012 for consent contemplated by Section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and though the same was received, there was no response. By amendment, it has been brought to our notice that the Advocate General of Maharashtra by his communication dated 15th October, 2012 has declined to grant consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. In support of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Advocate General has declined to grant consent on irrelevant considerations and the reasons given by him are wrong and illegal. He further argued that the said refusal by the Advocate General to grant consent cannot form the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shanker & others, 1988 3 SCC 167, it is necessary to treat the present petition as the Contempt Petition by exercising suo motu power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. According to him, the offending publication and telecast does amount to interference with the Administration of Justice and publication of the false news also lowers the authority of the Court. He then invited our attention to Rule 5 (f) in Chapter-XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, and argued that this petition be treated as the one lodged in the office of this Court inviting this Court to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and be directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Chambers for appropriate orders. He cited the following decisions:-

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and argued that the Advocate General has refused consent with reasons. The same cannot be said to be irrelevant and on the contrary the decision taken by him is perfectly within the four corners of law. He opposed the prayer for treating the Contempt Petition as suo motu action, or to process the Contempt Petition in accordance with Rule 5(f) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and prayed for dismissal of the petition.