- (1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. A book entitled "chalees Saal", written by opposite party No. 1, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Civil Judge, Lucknow, bearing his declaration dated 25-12-1987, was printed and published respec tively by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 2. The petitioner, Sri Prakash Awasthi, a practising lawyer ; filed this petition on 22-3-1988 for punishing the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, insofar as they had written, printed, and published the book containing statements set out in paras 7, 9 and 11 of the petition.
(2.) NOTICE was issued by this Court's order dated 22-3-1988 to opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of court may not be initiated against him. Reserving right to file a detailed counter-affidavit at the appropriate stage, opposite party No. 1 filed a reply on 9-5-88 stating that the petitioner had not obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate- General of U. P. Fur initiating proceedings for criminal contempt and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Opposite party No. 1 admitted to be the author of the book commenting upon the difference in the various aspects of life in this country during the first 49 years of independence, i. e. 1947 to 1987. It is urged that there is no reference, whatsoever, to any particular case or particular judge or particular court or of the conduct of a judge or the judgment of any court, and that there was nothing in the book which could either scandalise any court or interfere with the due course of the judicial process or with a administration of justice. On 13-5-88 the petitioner made an application stating that the permission of the Advocate-General was not necessary as the Court was being approached to take suo motu action. It was added that the book contained allegations against lawyers, judiciary and Karamcharis, and since the Advocate General falls in the category of Advocate, the taking of permission from him to launch the proceedings for contempt of court would place Advocate-General in an awkward position and shall serve no purpose. This application was prayed to be incorporated as part of the petition for taking contempt proceedings.
(3.) EXTENSIVE arguments have been addressed before us by the petitioner's learned counsel, Sri K. B. Sinha and opposite party No. 1 learned counsel Sri Markendya Katju on the preliminary objection concerning the consent of the Advocate-General and on the prima facie case for initiating contempt pro ceedings. Relevant portion of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (For short, the Act) runs as follows:- "15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by- (a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General. (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . It is plain that sub-section (1) of Section 15 contemplates motion for criminal contempt in three ways- (1) Suo motu by the Court, (2) by the Advocate-General; and (3) by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Admittedly, there is no motion of the Advocate-General in this case ; the motion is by the petitioner, and there is no consent in writing of the Advocate-General.;