Nirmalaben Waghela vs Raman Maheriya, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Development Department

D.S. Sinha, C.J.—Heard Mr. J. R. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. Arun D. Oza, learned Government Pleader appearing for the opponent, at great length and in detail.

Smt. Nirmalaben Wagheta, Ex-President of Porbander Nagarpalika, has moved instant application for initiating contempt proceedings against the opponent Mr. Raman Maheriya, Deputy Secretary to State of Gujarat, Urban Development & Urban Housing Development Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, on the allegation that by passing the order dated 3-9-2002, under the provisions of Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the opponent has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings in Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2002, and thereby, obstructed the administration of justice also, which amounts to criminal contempt as envisaged in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter called ''the Act''.

Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel of the applicant, very fairly, conceded that the case of the applicant is that the opponent has committed criminal contempt.

Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act provides that in the case of criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General, or any other person, with the consent of the Advocate General.

Indisputably, this Court is not taking any suo motu action in respect of the alleged criminal contempt against the opponent. The learned Advocate General has also not moved for taking action against the applicant for the alleged criminal contempt. The action against the opponent for the alleged criminal contempt may be initiated at the instance of the applicant, who falls in the category of ''any other person'' as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, but for initiating proceeding for criminal contempt against the opponent at the behest of the applicant, the consent in writing of the Advocate General is a condition precedent. Admittedly, there is no consent in writing of the Advocate General. Thus, the instant motion for initiating proceeding for criminal contempt against the opponent, at the behest of the applicant, is not maintainable. Indeed, it is barred.

Consequently, instant application fails at the threshold, and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.