Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 passed by respondent No. 1-Advocate General, U.P. Allahabad whereby he has refused to grant permission for filing Contempt Petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against respondent No. 2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, presently posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jalaun at Orai.

3. The relevant findings recorded in the impugned order 25.1.2016 by the Advocate General read thus :

“After going through the said report, in my opinion it is crystal clear that the incident had not taken place in the manner as alleged in the present application and as such there is no relevant material on record to support the allegation as contained in the application. The applicant in order to substantiate his allegation has relied upon certain statements which are part of the inquiry report but the report itself is speaking against the applicant.

The Special Officer (Vigilance) in his detailed report has given clear finding that the act of the applicant is contemptuous and as such the proceeding for contempt of Court against the applicant and other advocates should be drawn. Further, the High Court of Allahabad has been pleased to issue contempt notices to the applicant.

After considering the entire material as brought on record by the applicant I am of the view that PRIMA FACIE the allegation as contained in the application had already been exhaustively inquired into by Special Officer (Vigilance) High Court, Allahabad and were found untrue, moreover, the Special Officer (Vigilance) has only recommended the proceedings of Contempt against the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla being Judicial Officer has continuously committed contempt of Court from the date of his joining. Accordingly, no case of criminal contempt is made out against the opposite party and permission for filing the contempt petition before the High Court is hereby refused.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that immediately after joining in the District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai respondent No. 2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District Judge started misbehavior with the Advocates, litigants and even with his staff. The District Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as “the Bar Association”) made a complaint before the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and started agitation against him and took a decision for strike on account of abolition of morning Courts and in its letter dated 25.4.2014 the Bar Association again reiterated its previous complaint against respondent No. 2, which was sent to the Registrar General of this Court. On 18.10.2014 the Advocates made several complaints against his misbehaviour from time to time and the Bar Association also apprised the District Judge about his conduct and when he was not transferred, the Bar Association vide its resolution took a decision to boycott his Court w.e.f. 20.10.2014 until he is not transferred. It is stated that on 20.11.2014 a meeting of General Body of the District Bar Association was called and it took decision to boycott all the Courts w.e.f. 21.11.2014 but no action was taken by the High Court against respondent No. 2. The office bearers of the Bar Association had informed the District Judge about the aforesaid resolution on 20.11.2014 and when the delegations of the Bar Association were going to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaluan at Orai about aforesaid resolution, respondent No. 2 alongwith his Gunner and PAC Constables came out of his Court and started abusing the Advocates and ordered his gunner and Constables to beat the Advocates. The petitioner immediately tried to inform the High Court through fax but he was instructed by the fax receiver to send a complaint through District Judge concerned.

5. It appears that in