( 1 ) 1. An advocate of this court and a businessman of vijayawada town brought to the notice of this court a news-item and an editorial published in the telugu newspaper "eenadu" and the english newspaper news time", both published by "ushodaya publications private ltd". According to them the news-item contributed by Sri s. Venkatnarayana, a correspondent of the said newspaper, and the editorial constitute contempt of this court, the chief editor of both the newspapers, Sri ramoji rao, and the correspoadent,sri s. Venkatnarayana, based in delhi, were impleaded as respondents. C. c. No. 142/1986 was filed on 22-4-1986, and c. c. No. 140/86 was filed on the next day, i. e. , on 23-4-1986.

( 2 ) ON the said contempt cases being filed, the office raised an objection as to their maintainability. The objection was that, in as much as according to the petitioners, the respondents are guilty of criminal contempt, the contempt cases filed by them without obtaining the consent in writing of the advocate-general, as contemplated by Section 15 (1) (b) of the contempt of courts Act, 1971, are not maintainable. The matter was placed before a bench of this court, consisting of the hon ble chief justice and y. v, anjaneyulu, j. On 25-4-1986. The division bench overruled the office objection and ordered issuance of notices to respondents. The responpents appeared through counsel, and raised certain preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the contempt cases, besides resisting them on merits.

( 3 ) ON 25-7-1986, the petitioner in c. c. No. 142/86 filed an additional affidavit bringing to the notice of this court another write-up in the daily "news time" dated 25-4-1986, contributed by Sri s. Venkatnarayana from new delhi, which too, according to him, amounted to contempt of this court.

( 4 ) CONTEMPT cases NOS. 142 and 140 of 1986, along with the additional affidavit filed in c. c. No. 142/86 were posted before us for hearing. At the instance of the counsel for respondents, Sri e. Ayyapu reddy, we heard him and the counsel for petitioners on the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. By our order dated 9-2-1987, we upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents partly. It is not necessary to respect the reasoning contained in our order, except to mention the operative directions contained therein: (i) we held that cognizance of these contempt cases was taken by this court suo motu on the basis of information placed before the court by the petitioners therein ; hence the objection as to the non-maintainability, based on Section 15 (1) (b) of the aot, is unsustainable in law ; the contempt cases are maintainable; (ii) in as much as the contempt alleged against the respondents is criminal contempt as defined by the Act, the State of andhra pradesh shall have to be described as the petitioner in both contempt cases, and the advocate-general shall have to conduct the prosecution, as contemplated by Rule 8 (2) of the contempt of court Rules framed by this court under Section 23 of the Act, read with articles 215 and 227 of the constitution of india. Accordingly, we directed amendment of the cause-title of the two contempt cases, substituting the State of andhra pradesh for the petitioners therein, and directed the advocate general to conduct the prosecution ; (iii) we directed the additional affidavit filed in c. c. No. 142/86 to be registered as a separate contempt case of which we took suo motu notice, and directed the issuance of notices to the respondents therein. (accordingly, it has been registered as c. c. . No. 45/1987, and is posted before us along with the other contempt cases after service of notices on the respondents ;) (iv) in as much as these three contempt cases raise important questions affecting the high court, the bar, the subordinate judiciary and the freedom of press, we called upon the chairman of the andhra pradesh bar coucil as well as the president of the a. p