- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State on the point of maintainability of this application.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant criminal contempt petition has been filed under the provision of Sections 2(c), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against opposite parties No. 2 to 7 for making misleading statements deliberately and consciously in order to flout the orders passed by this Court and thereby they have interfered with the Administration of Justice and thus, prima facie, they seem to have committed a criminal contempt but the office has taken objection about the maintainability of this criminal contempt application as, according to office note, one civil contempt has been filed for non-compliance of the directions contained in the orders dated 21-7-2008 and 29-9-2008. That apart, in course of hearing, objection was taken about the maintainability of this contempt petition on the ground that the criminal contempt application has been filed without taking written consent of the Advocate General but both the objections taken do not have any substance as the power of the High Court being the Courts of record cannot be restricted and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as inherent power of the Court is unfettered and is not subjected to any limitation.
(3.) In this respect learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Ram Preeti Yadav v. Mahendra Pratap Yadav and others ((2007) 12 SCC 385) : AIR 2007 SC 3156, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding therein that apart from the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court has a constitutional duty in terms of Article 129 as also Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue such directions, as are necessary for the ends of justice.;