1. The petition for drawing contempt proceedings against the respondent is filed by one Ketah Shah and has enclosed with the petition as Annexure P/7 a copy of the order-sheet purported 'to have been signed by Shri S.L. Saxena, Advocate General, M.P. It appears that it was in pursuance to Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which provides for motion being made to the Court for drawing proceedings in a case of criminal contempt by the person and one of the category of the persons is any person with the consent of the Advocate General.

2. In the present case opinion is formed by the Advocate General and the relevant paragraph is as extracted:

"In my opinion, this is a fit case where necessary consent should be given to enable the petitioner/his Counsel Shri Shukla, to move necessary application before the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

But consequent upon this, order granting consent is not there and this opinion is founded on the finding of the Advocate General that Shri R.N. Tiwari has tried to interfere with the working of the Court indirectly. However, it is a technicality and technicality is not supposed to come