N.PRAKASH Vs. R.ASHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.19869 of 2024 before this Court, to direct the District Supply Officer and Taluk Supply Officer, Kanayannur, to take action against the 1st respondent (the petitioner's brother's wife) who has obtained a ration card by perpetrating fraud. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition containing false statements to mislead the Court. The 1st respondent has filed the affidavit, knowing the statements to be false. The 1st respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. Hence, the petitioner filed Sanction Petition No.7 of 2024 before the learned Advocate General (the second respondent) under Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('Act', for short) to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 in W.P(C)No.19869 of 2024 to initiate proceedings against the 1st respondent under Sec. 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, by Ext.P17 order, the learned Advocate General has rejected the petitioner's application. Ext.P.17 order is opposed to law and is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

(2.) Heard; Sri.Prakash. N, the petitioner and Sri. V. Manu, the learned Special Government Pleader.

(3.) The petitioner argued that Ext.P17 order has been passed without any application of mind or valid reason. The impugned order is justiciable before this Court in view of the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in R.L.Jalappa v. Advocate General for the State of Karnataka and others (2009 SCC OnLine Kar 237) and H.Munireddy v. Advocate General, State of Karnataka, Bengaluru and others (2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3085).