The petitioner must establish a prima facie case for contempt of court, and the court should refrain from issuing notice to the person charged with contempt without reasonable grounds.

BHASKARAN, J.

The petitioner in this Contempt O.P. is Sri T. A. Rajendran, Editor, Navab, Trichur. He was the petitioner in O.P. No. 3555 of 1982, and the appellant in W.A. No. 244 of 1982 filed against the dismissal of that writ petition. He was also the petitioner in O.P. No. 4980 of 1982 referred to in this writ petition.

2. O.P. No. 3555 of 1982 was mainly for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ to direct the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, for appointing a Commission of Inquiry as contemplated under Sections 3 and 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central), (the Act) into the allegations levelled against respondents 4, 5 and 6 therein, namely, Sri K. Karunakaran, Chief Minister of Kerala, Trivandrum, Sri V. N. Rajan, Director, Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Sri Jayaram Padikkal, Deputy Director, Vigilance Investigation, Kerala, Trivandrum. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge by the Judgment dated 27-5-1982; and the Writ Appeal filed against that judgment was also dismissed by a Division Bench holding that the writ petition was not maintainable as in terms of S. 3 of the Act the petitioner was not entitled to seek the relief. If was also pointed out that the petitioner has no case that he had made a specific demand to the Government for the appointment of a Commission in terms of S. 3 of the Act, and that the Government had refused to do so. It was further noted by the Division Bench that there was inordinate delay in the petitioner approaching this Court with the writ petition. Passingly this Court also stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment as follows :-

"Sri V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, Advocate General, submitted that if at all the appellant-petitioner was entitled to anything, that was to approach the Government in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 386-Home dated 20-12-1969. He also argued that the applicant-petitioner approached this Court without bearing in mind the limitations on the writ jurisdiction of this Court ........"

From the averments made in the present writ petition it would appear that the petitioner, though made a search in the Kerala High Court Library, he could not get a copy of G.O.Ms. 386/Home dated 20-12-1969. He, thereafter approached the 1st respondent herein, the Advocate General, to hand over a copy of the Government order to him. His request, it is stated, was, however, declined without giving any reason. Then he made a stamped application dated 9-7-1982 to the Regional Archives, Ernakulam, for a certified copy of that Government order. He was, however, told by the office of the Archives that that Government order was not available in that office at that time. Subsequently the petitioner filed O.P. No. 4980 of 1982 and obtained a direction from this Court to the 2nd respondent, State of Kerala, to issue a certified copy of that order to him within three days of the valid submission of a copy application in that behalf. Ext. P-1 is the certified copy of that order obtained by the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that having gone through Ext. P-1, it was found that its application was restricted to inquiry into the allegation of misconduct against Ministers including the Chief Minister or the M.L.As. of the Kerala State who held or had held the offices.

3. It is, therefore, contended by Sri A. K. Verghese, the counsel for the petitioner, that while arguing O.P. No. 3455 of 1982 and W.A. No. 244 of 1982 on behalf of the State, with reference to Ext. P-1 Government order, without producing a copy thereof, the 1st respondent, the Advocate General, had the knowledge that the petitioner's grievance was not confined to misconduct of a Minister of the State, as there were serious allegations against two other top Government officials, who figured as respondents 5 and 6 in those proceedings, and it was kno