Issuing threatening notices to an advocate in a pending litigation amounts to direct interference with the administration of justice and constitutes contempt of court.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE present proceedings for contempt have been initiated against the petitioner, who appears in person, pursuant to our orders dated 5th October, 2006. In the course of proceedings held on the said date, Mr. B. L. Wali, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 drew our attention to a notice dated 28th April, 2006 issued by the petitioner, Mr. H. Syama Sundara Rao to mr. Wali. In the said notice, the petitioner levelled a series of allegations against the counsel for the respondent and cast aspersions on him. The notice issued by the petitioner states that the counsel has made a mockery of the judiciary and the High Court; has indulged in grave professional misconduct and has deliberately misled the High Court. In the last para of the notice, the petitioner has stated that he gives three days' time to the counsel to take corrective steps, failing which the petitioner shall initiate appropriate action against the counsel before the High Court or before the Bar Council of Delhi. On perusal of the aforementioned notice issued by the petitioner, this court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court proceedings for violation of and obstruction of the Courts of Justice. The petitioner was called upon to file his reply within one week and the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2006.

( 2 ) AS the court has taken action on its own motion in the present case, the nature of contempt of which the petitioner was prima facie found guilty, was specifically put to him to enable him to make his submissions and file his reply to show cause in the said context.

( 3 ) ON 16th October, 2006, the petitioner justified his action of issuing notice to Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate and stated that he had filed his reply to the show cause notice and at the same time claimed that he had already apologized to the advocate. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner makes it apparent that the apology, if any, tendered by him was far from unqualified and in fact in the reply to the notice to show cause, he has not only justified his action referred to hereinabove, but has further elaborated some of the statements made against the Advocate for the respondent, which as culled out from his reply, are in the following manner:"as petitioners life is ruined by false proposition of law by counsel Shri b. L. Wali. Petitioner in person gave a bonafied speaking notice dated 28. 05. 2006 to correct false proposition of law and subsequently after four months filed CRLM 9269/06. (Pending) invoking Sec. 35 of Advocates Act, and Bar Council Rules of professional conduct requesting High Court to direct Bar Council for appropriate action. The petitioner in person stands ruined by the professional misconduct of blatant false proposition of law Shri B. L. Wali and hence issued said notice dated 28. 04. 2003. The petitioner is a victim of fraud committed on judiciary by the counsels who have acted like parliament and also deliberately mislead the courts. Shri B. L. Wali, counsel of Super Bazar respondent No. 3 and of law officer of super Bazar respondent No. 4 has pleaded wrong proposition of law deliberately, and has delayed/denied justice to me. They have acted like parliament. UOU has not filed reply. counsel Shri B. L. Wali has acted like parliament. He has made following shockingly false proposition of law in brief as under. Hence it is clear that Shri B. L. Wali is deliberately misleading the Hon'ble high Court, which is professional misconduct as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 2 Supreme Court 221. Thus Shri B. L. Wali has violated of professional conduct and etiquette and professional ethics, and duty to court enshrined in the section 49-c of Advocates Act 1961. As advocates are liable for misconduct u/s 35 of the advocates act 1961, giving notice to advocate Shri B. L. Wali and consequently filing an application in High Court CM 9269/06, (pending in High Court) can