1 CONP.13-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2011 Sarvajanik Vachanalaya & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. Prabhakar Yashwant Kulkarni & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Vivek Salunke i/b P.B. Shah, for the Petitioners. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the Respondent no.5 State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 07, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 By this contempt petition filed by the petitioner-trust, the petitioner have alleged that the respondents have committed contempt of court by publishing the report in the newspapers which is factually incorrect. It is submitted that this has been done with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that therefore this court should take suo motu cognizance of the said report published in the newspapers and issye contempt notice 2 CONP.13-2011 against the respondent again. 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar Vs. Vinay Chandra Misra [ (1981) 1 SCC 436 ]. 4. In our view, it would be appropriate if the petitioners first approach the learned Advocate General of the State and apply for consent as envisaged under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Court Act. The Apex Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar (Supra), though has observed that the discretion vests in this Court in issuance of suo motu contempt proceedings if the consent is obtained, in our view the said discretion cannot be exercised in each and every case. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue suo motu contempt notice. We direct the petitioners to approach the learned Advocate General. If such application is made, the same may be decided expeditiously. 5. With above direction, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)