VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. The issue raised in the present petition by the petitioner is if the Law Officer as mentioned in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act or the said Act) refuses to grant permission to initiate action for criminal contempt, then, if a petition is filed thereafter in the court for seeking initiation of criminal contempt under the Act, is not such a petition bound to be listed on the judicial side for hearing. Putting it differently, the petitioner contends that when a petition is filed seeking initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt, although permission is refused by the Law Officer under Section 15 of the Act, then such a petition cannot be treated only as an information to the court and the same has to be treated as a substantive petition which cannot be dealt with by this court on the administrative side.

2. The issue canvassed arises for determination because the petitioner had sought permission of the Law Officer under Section 15 for initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt against various persons on the ground that various repetitive petitions were being filed and they were basically initiated at the behest of one Mr. Satya Pal Gupta. It was alleged that the repeated criminal complaints filed by Mr. S.P.Gupta although through Mr. Sudesh Kohli and Mr. Vijay Kaushik and which complaints on identical facts constituted abuse of the process of court. It was sought to be contended that by filing successive proceedings on identical allegations, suppressing certain earlier orders and earlier proceedings made the repeat proceedings frivolous and vexatious, amounting not only to scandalising the authority of the court but also the same tended to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. On the Law Officer refusing permission under Section 15 of the Act for initiating proceedings for criminal contempt a petition was filed before this court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 2(c) and 15 of the Act, which petition was not placed for hearing on the judicial side but was treated by the respondent herein only as an information to the Chief Justice. Hon’ble the Chief Justice thereafter marked the papers to a learned Single Judge of this court for his opinion and the learned Single Judge opined that no case of criminal contempt was made out. Accordingly, the petition was not placed on the judicial side and was rejected by the impugned order on the administrative side. The petitioner by means of this petition challenges the said impugned order dated 20.8.2007 and seeks quashing of the same.

3. The principal argument which was addressed by Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the procedure adopted by the High Court/respondent in treating the petition as only an information was defective inasmuch as there are no rules which have been framed. It was contended that the petition should have in fact been listed on the judicial side and not disposed of on the administrative side in view of the observations of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J in his concurring judgment in the case reported as P.N.Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shankar , 1988 (3) SCC 167. It was contended that the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute, AIR 2005 SC 396 would not apply inasmuch as the decision in the case of Bal Thackrey (supra) will only apply when contempt proceedings are suo moto initiated by the court. It was further contended that even in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. K. Suba Rao ILR (1974) 1 Del 1 (DB), which case was approved by the Supreme Court in the Bal Thackrey’s case was also a case with respect to suo moto initiation of contempt proceedings. Reliance was placed extensively on the judgment of Justice Sabyasachi Mukherj ee in the case of P.N.Duda (supra) although the Supreme Court approved the views of the other learned Single Judge Ranganatha