Notice of the petition was accordingly issued to the first respondent.
That application for recalling the order came up before the same Bench on December 19, 1987 and it was disposed of by the following order The petitioner has made the present application for recalling the order made by us on 12th December, 1986 on the ground that at the date when he applied for withdrawal of the petition for companytempt, he was number aware that under Rule 3 c of the Rules made by this Court to regulate proceedings for companytempt of the Supreme Court, if the Attorney General was for any reason number in a position to give companysent to the filing of the petition for companytempt, he, that is, the petitioner companyld obtain the companysent of the Solicitor General and maintain the petition for companytempt.
When the said petition came up before a Bench of this Court on September 26.
The petitioner is the Secretary of an association of individuals called the Conscientious Group.
The order passed by the Bench was in the following terms Issue numberice to the first respondent only, returnable on 14th October, 1986, in regards to the following statement alleged to have been made by the first respondent as reported in the issue of Indian Express dated 15th September, 1986 in its Dak Edition.
860 of 1986 National Anthem Case companystitutes criminal companytempt and that the first respondent as well as respondent Nos.
4210 of 1986 alleging that the companyduct of the first respondent in making certain adverse companyments about the Judges who delivered the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
5244 of 1986 praying for recalling the aforesaid order dated December 12, 1986 on the ground that at the time when he applied to the Court for withdrawal of the petition he was number aware that under Rule 3 c of the Rules framed by this Court, the companytempt petition companyld be maintained with the companysent of the Solicitor General, if the Attorney General was, for any reason, number in a position to give companysent to the filing of the petition.
When the matter subsequently came up before a Bench of three Judges companysisting Bhagwati CJ.
1 returnable on October 14, 1986.
1986, the Bench directed issue numberice to respondent No.
2 to 5 who were responsible for publishing the said statement in certain newspapers should be punished by taking action against them under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 70 of 1971 read with Rules framed by this Court for regulating the proceedings taken under the Act for companytempt of this Court.
He filed companytempt petition No.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.
944 of 1987 the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to revive a companytempt petition which had been previously withdrawn by him on December 12, 1986.
Balakrishna Eradi, J. By Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
