- (1.) In this contempt petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad learned counsel for the contemner has raised a preliminary objection that this contempt petition for initiating criminal proceedings for committing criminal contempt against the opposite party is not legally maintainable as there is no consent of the Advocate General as required under Section 15 (1-b) of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The learned counsel further submitted that the facts stated in the petition do not disclose that the criminal contempt has been committed and case, if established, at the most amount to civil contempt.
(2.) We have heard Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma, who has argued this case in person. He has submitted that a notice was issued by this Court on 21/08/1998 to the opposite party, which means that the Court has taken action on its own motion, hence the consent of the learned Advocate General is not required and the present proceedings do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The second submission made by Sri Sharma is that as the notice was issued in August, 1998 and he has been pursuing these proceedings and since then about eight months have passed as such it will not be proper to dismiss the petition on the technical grounds.
(3.) We have thoroughly considered the submissions made by both the sides. The order dated 21/08/1998 by which a notice was issued to the opposite party reads as under :"Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma the petitioner who has appeared in person. Let notice be issued to opposite party Ram Darash Ram, who was posted as Officer Incharge of Sahatbar, Police Station, District Ballia during the relevant period to show cause by 22nd of September, 1998 why the the proceedings in Criminal Contempt of Court will not be initiated against him. The notice will be served through the present Officer Incharge of Sahatbar Police Station, District Ballia. The case will be listed on 22nd of September, 1998.";