CWP No. 19673 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19673 of 2009 Date of decision January 7, 2010 Gurdip Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus Advocate General, Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the decision of the Advocate General, Haryana to accord consent for prosecution of a case for criminal contempt. The decision taken by the Advocate General is purely administrative in character and not a quasi judicial function. If the rules of natural justice have been followed and the party had been granted sufficient opportunity to make a statement before the Advocate General and the Advocate General had taken a decision, nothing further survives for a party to urge at this stage. The Advocate General, that grants permission will only see if there are sufficient averments for alleged commission of the act. All that is required is to assure himself that there is some material on the basis of which contempt action could be initiated and it is also to avoid that frivolous cases are not filed. If the Advocate General has found that the material discloses a prima facie case for complaint, the person against whom the action is proposed will have sufficient opportunity to defend himself at the relevant time when the Court decides either to issue contempt notice or not. The person cannot be said to be aggrieved CWP No. 19673 of 2009 2 at this stage to challenge the decision of the Advocate General. 2. The writ petition is pre-mature and misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 7 ,2010 archana