Writ Plea Against Advocate General's Refusal To Grant Nod For Criminal Contempt Proceedings Isn't Maintainable: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has said that a writ plea challenging the Advocate General's refusal to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings is non-maintainable. A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed this while referring to the Supreme Court's order in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Others, 1988, wherein it was held that in cases of refusal...
The Allahabad High Court has said that a writ plea challenging the Advocate General's refusal to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings is non-maintainable.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed this while referring to the Supreme Court's order in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Others, 1988, wherein it was held that in cases of refusal of consent by the Advocate General/Attorney General, no purpose would be served by the court spending its time finding out whether the Advocate General/Attorney General should have given a decision one way or the other.
The division bench added that in such cases, the petitioner is not without remedy, and it is always open to him to present the information in his possession to the court and request that the court take action.
The bench was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by one Arun Mishra challenging an order from the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh. The Advocate General had refused to grant consent for Mishra's application to file a criminal contempt petition under Section 15(3)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Opposing the plea, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that this writ petition won't be maintainable as the order of the Advocate General refusing to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings cannot be challenged by way of filing a writ petition.
The court dismissed the writ plea, agreeing with the contention of the Counsel appearing for the State AG and considering the Supreme Court's judgment in the PN Duda case (supra).
The Court, however, added that the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Division Bench dealing with criminal contempt matters in accordance with the High Court Rules and the Supreme Court's decision.
Case title - Arun Mishra vs. Advocate General 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 444