(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order/proceedings dated 14.06.2007, as per Annexure-A.)

1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was a member of Parliament when this petition was preferred in the year 2007. The second respondent is the Director, Doordarshan, Bangalore. It is the petitioner's case that he has received several complaints against the second respondent from the general public, as to the manner of his functioning, as well as allegations of corruption, misuse of official power etc. He had, by a letter dated 21.8.2006 addressed the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting enclosing a detailed representation made against the second respondent. The said enclosure to the letter contained several apparently defamatory and scandalous statements of the higher judiciary and had named several judges of the High Court of Karnataka and a judge of the Supreme Court, who were alleged to be under the influence of the second respondent. It transpires that on account of the letter written by the petitioner - explanations had been called for by the superiors of the second respondent and he was subsequently issued an order of transfer, as had been requested by the petitioner in his letter aforesaid, by an order, dated 2.11.2006.

The second respondent had challenged the order of transfer in an application in OA 383/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner herein was made a respondent to the said application. The second respondent had contended before the Tribunal that the order of transfer was prompted solely by the baseless letter of the petitioner and hence was blatantly mala fide. The petitioner who entered appearance before the Tribunal and by way of a statement of objections had admitted the fact that representations against the second respondent had indeed been forwarded by him to the Ministry and that he believed there was substance in the allegations.

The second respondent had hence approached the Advocate General of Karnataka with an application under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) seeking consent of the Advocate General to initiate action for criminal contempt of Court against the petitioner, before this Court. The Advocate General, by an order dated 14.6.2007, has opined that as the petitioner had admitted the contents of the letter which endorsed statements that lend to scandalize the Court and judges - he has no choice but to grant consent. It is this order of the Advocate General that is under challenge.

3. Shri Madhusudhan Naik, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner, contends as follows:

a) Though the petitioner may have personally handed over a letter to the then Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting enclosing a representation that had been received by post, that cannot be construed as the publication of any matter or the doing of any act, whatsoever which scandalizes or lowers the authority of any Court or prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings, or the administration of justice.

b) It is contended that the Advocate General has erroneously concluded that the petitioner had admitted any scandalous statements made by third-parties. It was not even the case of the second respondent that the petitioner had admitted any such allegations in his pleadings before the Tribunal.

c) It is contended that the second respondent seeks to abuse the process of this Court in proposing to bring an action for criminal contempt of Court against the petitioner. And consent having been granted on an erroneous reading of the conduct of the petitioner leads to serious civil and criminal consequences and that the petitioner is hence enabled to seek the intervention of this Court.

d) Further it is urged that the petitioner having pl