Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - This contempt of court case is registered and taken cognizance of, on the allegation that the respondent has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for short, 'the Act'.

2. Consent of the Advocate General was not sought for by the petitioner before instituting the application which has generated these proceedings. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to obtain it. Because the proceedings before the Advocate General was apparently getting delayed, at least to some extent, for whatsoever be the reason therefore; and because this Court was cognizant of the fact that very many of the allegations and averments in this case involve statements touching the performance of the office of the Advocate General as well; it was decided that it is appropriate to look into the matter for suo motu action, notwithstanding that the consent of the Advocate General was not available, though applied for by the petitioner. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and notice was issued to the respondent.

3. Attributes made against the respondent, beyond any shadow of doubt, fall within the ambit of the afore n