MADAN MOHAN SETHI Vs. NIRMAL SHAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As noted in the order dated 02.08.2010, the plea raised on behalf of the alleged contemnor is that this criminal contempt petition is not maintainable at the instance of the Petitioner, inasmuch as the consent of the Law Officer as required under Section 15 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has not been taken. An additional plea was also taken by the alleged contemnor that the present petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner had a specific remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which the Petitioner had already availed.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties on the issue of maintainability of this petition. Section 15 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) reads as under:

(3.) In the present case Section 15(1)(c) would be applicable and, therefore the proceedings for criminal contempt must be initiated either on a motion made by a Law Officer as notified in the official gazette or by any other person but with the consent in writing of such Law Officer. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Petitioner had moved an application before the Standing Counsel for the Government of Delhi for grant of permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Respondents herein. The said application was made on 24.07.1995 and on the very same application the Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi High Court, after noting that that law of contempt should not be used to settle civil disputes between the parties was of the view that his consent was not necessary. It is obvious that the said Law Officer did not give his consent in writing to the contempt petition which was sought to be initiated by the Petitioner.