1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1581 OF 2009 Sr. Charanjeet Singh Kishan Chanderpal (Gehi) alias Charanjeet Chanderpal & Ors .. Petitioners Vs R.M. Kadam, Advdocate General, State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Petitioner in person Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. with Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th November, 2009 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, the petitioner party in person and a learned member of the Bar. 2. He has brought in question a view taken by learned Advocate General in declining to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings vide his communication dated 17th March, 2007. We have also noticed that before the contempt petition was moved, the RMA 5wp1581-09.sxw 2 petitioner had submitted a representation to this court (on its administrative side) and he is not aware of any cognizance taken on the said representation. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Baradakanta Mishra Vs Registrar of Orissa High Court (AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 710), P.N. Duda [ (1988) 3 SCC 167 ] and Bal Thackrey Vs Harish Pimpalkhute and Ors [(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 254], is clear on the procedural aspect on initiating criminal contempt proceedings before the High Court. 3. Having regard to the law laid down in the above cited cases, we have granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the petition so as to enable him to find out at the first instance, the action taken against his representation on the administrative side of this court and if so advised to move a fresh contempt petition to take sue motto cognizance by the High Court. Hence, this petition is disposed as withdrawn with liberty in above terms. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] RMA 5wp1581-09.sxw 3 RMA 5wp1581-09.sxw