Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.

The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the order dated 19.12.2005 at Annexure-B, on the file of respondent No.1/Advocate General, and direct the respondent No.1 to grant consent to institute criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:

The petitioner claims that he is a Senior Member of Haveri Bar Association and an Advocate for the plaintiffs in O.S. No.9/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) at Haveri. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Managing Partner of the 2nd defendant/Firm in the Suit had filed a written statement on 23.5.2005 through the 3rd respondent/Advocate. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are hand in glove with each other and with common intention, have made false allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he made an application dated 8.12.2005 to the respondent No.1 seeking consent for instituting criminal contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No.1, by order dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure-B) rejected the application. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the reliefs, as mentioned above. He has urged the following grounds.

(i) that the impugned order is contrar to law, facts and material on record and it has caused great prejudice to the petitioner,

(ii) that the respondent No.1 has proceeded on the legal premise that the consent of the Advocate General is not required to initiate criminal contempt of Courts subordinate to the High Court and Supreme Court, and

(iii) that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind.

3. The respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. He has stated that once Bangarevva and others had filed a Suit on O.S. No. 9/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) at Haveri, for partition and separate possession through the petitioner/Advocate against one Ashok C Niralagi, M/s. Varada Finance Corporation and Yallappa G. Baddi as defendants-1 to 3, respectively. The 3rd defendant is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7. The 2nd respondent herein as the Managing Partner, was representing the 2nd defendant-M/s. Varada Finance Corporation. The 2nd respondent herein had engaged the 3rd respondent/Advocate in the above-said suit to defend his case. The 2nd defendant filed his written statement. The respondent No.3 has discharged his duties as an Advocate for the defendant No.2 in the suit. The defendant No.2 is in no way connected with the suit property. The 2nd defendant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit. The 2nd defendant has taken all defences available to him and the averments made in the written statement in para-10 (a) to (c) are correct and they are not amounting to contempt of Court. It is also contended that the petitioner in most of the cases, due to rancor and professional jealousy, wherein the respondent No.3 has appeared as an Advocates, invariably moved to initiate contempt proceedings. Further, the petitioner has filed may suits against many Advocates of the Bar. It is also pleaded that the High Court of Karnataka had initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioner on a reference made by Munsiff and JMFC, Haveri, and the petitioner had appeared and tendered un-conditional apology (vide order dated 1.12.1967 at Annexure-R1). Therefore, the respondent No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P. No. 405/2006, the present petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.12.2005 made by the Advocate General refusing to give the consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt o