JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---On 5th July, 2002 the petitioner made an application to the Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra for his consent to file a criminal contempt petition before this Court. The petitioner also forwarded draft of contempt petition. The Advocate General declined to grant consent and a communication to that effect was sent to the petitioner. The said communication dated July 8, 2002 reads thus:---

"GOVERNMENT OF No. AG/282/02

MAHARASHTRA (SEAL) 1st Floor, Chamber No. 5,

G.E. VAHANVATI, High Court Extension Bld.

ADVOCATE GENERAL Mumbai 400 032.

July 08, 2002

To,

Mr. Sham Sunder Arya,

Chief General Secretary,

Samajwadi Party, Mumbai.

Sub: Sanction for filing petition before the Honble Bombay High Court for criminal contempt.

Dear Mr. Arya,

This refers to your application dated July 5, 2002 for sanction for filing petition in the Bombay High Court in terms of the draft submitted to me. I note from the draft that the statements alleged to constitute contempt are said to have been made at a meeting held in Haridwar on 22-6-2002. Further, the proceedings referred to in para 3 of the draft petition are said to be pending in the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. I further note from the cause title that none of the respondents reside within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and as such the statement in para 9 that the respondents are within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court (i.e. Bombay High Court) does not appear to be correct. In the premises, I am of the opinion that the Bombay High Court is not the appropriate Court to take cognizance of the case and as such I decline to grant consent.

Yours Sincerely,

Sd/-

(G.E. VAHANVATI)"

2. The aforesaid communication sent by the Advocate General to the petitioner declining to grant consent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, Act of 1971) is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. At the outset, the learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of writ petition. His submission in that regard was refusal to grant consent by Advocate General under the Act of 1971 is not justifiable nor it is amenable to judicial review. In this connection he invited our attention to few judgments viz. (i) (N. Venkataramanappa v. D.K. Naikar and another)1, A.I.R. 1978 Karnataka 57, (ii) (Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and others)2, 1977(3) All England Law Reports 70, (iii) (Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.)3, 1973(3) All England Law Reports 54, (iv) (P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker others)4, 1988(3) S.C.C. 167 and (v) (Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and others v. The Honble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed)5, A.I.R. 1986 Patna 65. The learned Advocate General, however, did not dispute the legal position that even after the consent has been declined by Advocate General, it is always open to the concerned party to place the information in his possession before the Court and request the Court to take action and, thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be without remedy.

4. On the other hand Mr. Sebastian, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and others)6, 1987(3) S.C.C. 89 strenuously urged that it is not that refusal to grant consent by Advocate General or for that matter Attorney General as well as Solicitor General is not subject to judicial review and Courts interference.

5. The question whether the order passed by the Advocate General refusing to grant consent is justiciable and subject to Courts scrutiny is of quite importance but the learned Advocate General submitted that it is not necessary for us in this matter to go into the said question and leave this issue to be decided in suitable case later on and present matter declining to grant sanction by him be examined on merits. We, accordingly, leave the issue concerning the justiciability of the order passed by Advocate Genera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document