DILIP B. BHOSALE J.

1. Three advocates practicing in this Court have instituted a Contempt of Court Case (Criminal) (for short "the petition") against the alleged contemnors -accused nos.1 to 4 (for short "the accused"). Accused no.1 is Chairman and Managing Director of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. Accused no.2 is Chairperson and Editorial Director of Hindustan Times India Ltd. Accused nos.3 & 4 are Reporter and Editor-in-Chief respectively of a daily news paper "Kannada Prabha". The only prayer made in the petition reads thus:

"WHEREFORE, the complainant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court be pleased to frame the charge and punish accused nos.1 to 4 for committing criminal contempt of this Honourable High Court and allow the above petition in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioners before filing this petition, on 3.4.2012 had submitted a memorandum ‘under section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short the Act’) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, addressed to the Advocate General, seeking his written consent to file the petition i.e. the contempt of court case (criminal) against the accused before this Court.

The learned Advocate General vide order dated 12.4.2012 rejected the memorandum / application filed by the petitioners. It is against this backdrop the petitioners filed this petition seeking action against the accused for committing criminal contempt for the reasons stated in the petition.

3. On filing of the petition, the office raised an objection as to maintainability of the petition for want of written consent of the Advocate General and made an endorsement to post it before court for orders. In the vacation, on 23.4.2012, advocate on record for the petitioners filed a memo requesting to post the petition for preliminary hearing / orders / hearing, on 25.4.2012 before the Bench available in the vacation. Accordingly, the petition was placed before the Division Bench on 25.4.2012 when the order "issue notice" was passed. Thereafter, the petition was placed before the Bench on 2-3 occasions and finally it came before this Bench on 2nd of July, 2012. On that date, at the request of learned counsel for the complainants, we kept the petition on 3rd July, 2012 for hearing on a preliminary objection that was raised by learned counsel for the accused.

4. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for accused nos.3 & 4 was two fold. Firstly, the petition deserves to be dismissed for want of consent in writing of the Advocate General; and secondly, even for taking suo motu cognizance of a criminal contempt, the procedure as contemplated by the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, (for short ‘the Rules’) and as laid down by the Supreme Court in P.N. DUDA versus P. SHIV SHANKER & OTHERS AIR 1988 SC 1208 and BAL THACKREY versus HARISH PIMPALKHUTE AND ANOHTER AIR 2005 SC 396 since had not been followed by the office, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainants submitted that this objection cannot be considered since this Court has already applied its mind as contemplated by Rule 8 (ii) (a) of the Rules, and issued notice to the respondents. In other words, he submitted that the order "issue notice" in such petition amounts to rejection of the office objection as to its maintainability. He then submitted that in any case, as contemplated by sub-rule (v) of Rule 5 of the Rules nothing precludes this Court from taking suo motu action on the basis of "information disclosed" and since in the present petition "sufficient information" is disclosed so as to attract the action under the provisions of the Act, the Division Bench vide its order dated 25.4.2012 rightly issued notice to the respondents, and therefore, the preliminary objection need not be examined and deserves to be rejected outright. He, then submitted that as contemplated by clause (ii) of rule 10 of