The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision in S. 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requiring the consent of the Advocate General for making a motion for criminal contempt of the High Court, is directory and not mandatory.

( 1 ) IN view of the preliminary objection raised to the maintainability of this petition presented under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 alleging that the respondents had committed 'criminal contempt' of this Court and praying for taking suitable action against them, the following question of law arises for our consideration : whether the provision for making a motion for taking action for criminal contempt of the High Court against an alleged contemner with the consent of the Advocate General incorporated in S. 15 (1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, is mandatory or directory ?

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are these : (I) The petitioner is one of the petitioners in an election petition filed under s. 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and pending before this Court calling in question the election of Sri Devaraj urs, farmer Chief Minister of Karnataka to the State Legislative Assembly from hunsur Contituency, who is the first respondent in this petition. The allegations made i. i this petition inter alia are that respondents 3 to 8, who were all the supporters of the 1st respondent, forcibly kidnapped the petitioner from Hunsur on 29-6-1978, brought him to Bangalore, kept him in a hotel at Bangalore under wrongful restraint till 3-7-1978 and during this period he was taken before 1st respondent and his advocate, the 2nd respondent, and ultimately took a letter from him addressed to his advocate asking her to withdraw the election petition, under threat, coer- sion and danger spelled out to his life and the life of his wife and children, and that after such' letter was taken and sent to his advocate, and he was released, he met his advocate and explained the circumstances under which the letter was written and thereafter this petition has been filed. After narrating all the facts, in para 29 the petitioner has stated as follows : the respondents by threatening me, keeping me under illegal confinement, taking letters from me forcibly have tried to interfere with the court proceedings and have thus committed contempt of court and they are liable to be punished according to law. (II) On 10-7-1978, a Division Bench of this Court directed the issue of notice to the respondents. At the instance of the 2nd respondent, who maintained that no case had' been made out against him, the matter in so far it related to the second respondent was heard, and by an order made on July 31, 1978, proceedings were dropped against him. (III) The matter was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately the petition, as against respondents 1 and 3 to 7 was heard on August 1. 1980. Last para of the order made by us on that date reads as follows : "in our opinion, in the circumstances of the case the assertion made by respondent No. 1 that he had refused to meet the petitioner though he had been brought to h;s house and that he had made no suggestions to the petitioner in the matter of his withdrawing from the Election Petition and did not threaten the petitioner in any way is probable. There are no other materials justifying the allegation made by the petitioner that Respon- deat No. 1 tried to interfere in the course of justice before this Court. It, therefore, appears to us that proceedings in so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned has to be dropped. 5. So far as the other Respondents, viz. , Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are concerned, the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 6 which has been virtually adopted by the other respondents, to a large extent corroborates the averments made by the petitioner though the attempt on the part of the respondent No. 6 is to make out that it was at the instance of the petitioner that he was brought to bangalore and that they did not coerce or compel him to do anything. Therefore it appears to us that the proceedings against them cannot be dropped. It appears that there is a prirna facie case for framing a cha