ORDER 1. This Criminal Contempt Petition has been filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) alleging that the respondent has scandalized the High Court by making sarcastic remarks while commenting on the order of the high Court restricting the rallies on M.G. Road, Indore in the interest of environment and general public. 2. It is alleged in the contempt petition that the respondent, on 29.07.2010, before the media persons, had made scandalous and sarcastic remarks about the High Court which were published in the local daily news paper "Raj Express" and "People's Samachar" on 30.07.2010. The petitioner has quoted those remarks in the contempt petition and has made a prayer for punishing the respondent for deliberately and maliciously committing the contempt of the High Court. 3. In response to the notice of admission, respondent has filed reply and raised preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the Criminal Contempt Petition without the consent of the Advocate General, in addition to defending the contempt on merit and on other grounds. 4. We have heard earned counsel of the parties at length and have gone through the record of the case. 5. It is undisputed that that petitioner has approached this Court for initiating the criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent without obtaining the consent of the advocate General. 6. Section 15 of the Act deals with taking cognizance of the criminal contempt in the cases other than those covered under section 14. Section 14 of the Act is not attracted in the present case since it relates to the procedure where contempt is on the face of the Supreme Court or the High Court i.e. the contempt committed in the presence or during hearing in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Section 14 of the Act is not attracted in the present case since it relates to the procedure where contempt is on the face of the Supreme Court or the High Court i.e. the contempt committed in the presence or during hearing in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Section 15, which is attracted in the present case, provides for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the High Court either on its own motion or on the motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General or in relation to the High Court of Union Territory of Delhi the specified Law Officer or any other person with the consent in writing of such Law Officer Thus, a private individual under section 15 of the Act has two options, either to persuade the Advocate General to take an action for Contempt of Court or to obtain the consent in writing of the Advocate General and then take action for contempt of Court. 7. It is settled position in law that the conditions imposed by and the procedure prescribed under Section (sic) 5 of the act are mandatory in nature and cognizance cannot taken in a Criminal contempt petition unless these mandatory conditions are satisfied. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kerala Vs. M.S. Mani and others, (2001) 8 SCC 82 , has examined the purpose and object of incorporation such conditions by holding that: 6. The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes motion in the case of a criminal contempt in High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the State/centre as also the officers of the Court are vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity of the Courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provision. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provision. Further, cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by personal vendetta and not in public interest will get filtered at that level, if a motion of criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers, the very purpose of the requirement of prior consent will be frustrated. For a valid motion compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of the Act is mandatory A motion under section 15 not in conformity with the provisions of section 15, is not maintainable. (Conscientious Group Vs. Mohd. Yunus, (1987) 3 SCC 89 : 1987 (Cri) 465 and P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shanker, (1988) 3 SCC 167 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 589.) In this view of the matter law has been correctly laid down by the Orissa High Court in B.K. Misra Vs. Chief Justice, Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 Ori 1 (FB), the Patna High Court in Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, AIR 1986 Pat 65 : 1986 Cri. L.J. 320 (FB) and the Bombay High Court in Vishwanath Vs. E.S. Venkatramaih, 1990 Cri L.J. 2179 (Bom). We may also note here that non compliance with section 7 of the English Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 referred to above, was held to be fatal to the action (Borrie & Lowe : The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn. P. 481 (Note 14). 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled position in law, the contempt petition at the instance of the petitioner who is a private individual, without the consent in writing of the Advocate General, is not maintainable. 9. The petitioner along with the contempt petition, has filed I.A. No. 4404/10 with the payer that the petitioner may be exempted from obtaining the consent of the Advocate General and the contempt petition be entertained without consent. Such a prayer cannot be allowed because the requirement of section 15 is mandatory in nature. Petitioner has failed to point out any provision in law which permits the petitioner to apply for exemption from complying with section 15 of the Act. Such a prayer cannot be allowed because the requirement of section 15 is mandatory in nature. Petitioner has failed to point out any provision in law which permits the petitioner to apply for exemption from complying with section 15 of the Act. There is no provision in the 'Act which empowers the Court to grant such an exemption. In view of this the I.A. stands rejected. 10. During the Course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondent. It is not in dispute the under section 15 of the Act, this court has power to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, but in a case where the contempt petition is filed before the Court without complying with mandatory provisions of section 15 of the Ac, such a power is to be exercised carefully and sparingly since such a course results in to by passing the mandatory safeguards prescribed under section 15 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the matter of J.R. Parashar Vs. Prashant Bhushan, (2001) 6 SCC 735 , considering this issue has held as under :- 28. Of course this Court could have taken suo motu cognizance had the petitioners prayed for it. they had not. Even if they had, it is doubtful whether the Court would have acted on the statements of the petitioners had the petitioners been candid enough to have disclosed that the police had refused to take cognizance of their complaint. In any event the power to act suo motu in matters which otherwise require the Attorney General to initiate proceedings or at least give this consent must be exercised rarely. Courts normally reserve this exercise to cases where it either derives information from its own sources, such as from a perusal of the records, or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech or a document which would speak for itself. Otherwise sub-section (1) of section 15 might be rendered atiose. 11. The said position in law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others, (2005) 1 SCC 254 by observing thus :- 18. Otherwise sub-section (1) of section 15 might be rendered atiose. 11. The said position in law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and others, (2005) 1 SCC 254 by observing thus :- 18. The direction in Duda case when seen and appreciated in the light of what we have noticed hereinbefore in respect of contempt action and the powers of the Chief justice, it would be clear that the same prescribe the procedure to be followed by High Courts to ensure smooth working and streamlining of such contempt action which are intended to be taken up by the Court suo motu on its own motion. These directions have no effect of curtailing or denuding the power of the High Court. It is also to be borne in mind that the frequent use of suo motu power on the basis of information furnished in a contempt petition otherwise incompetent under Section of the Act may render the procedural safeguards of the Advocate General's consent nugatory. We are of the view that the direction given in Duda case are legal and valid. 12. We have considered the entire circumstances of the and keeping in view the aforesaid position in law, we do not find it appropriate to initiate the suo motu contempt proceeding against the respondent. Thus, the petitioner's prayer in this regard is rejected. 13. We have also noticed that this contempt petition is based upon the newspaper publication which contain the pinion of the reporters in addition to the factual reporting. The respondent has disputed these repots by raising the plea that they are unreliable and they do not produce the exact contents of conversation. The petitioner has also not made the editor and the reporter of the said news as party in the present contempt petition. Thus, it would not be proper to initiate proceedings on the basis of such newspaper reports Reliance has also been placed-on the audio/video C.D., but the said C.D. does not form a part of contempt petition since there is no reference of the said C.D. in the contempt petition. The C.D. has been filed subsequently with an affidavit without amending the contempt petition. The C.D. has been filed subsequently with an affidavit without amending the contempt petition. Undisputedly this C.D. was not recorded in the presence of the petitioner nor the petitioner has disclosed the name of the person who had recorded the C.D. Respondent has raised objection that it is edited C.D. of his Press Conference and it does not even contain the question which were allegedly answered by the respondent. 14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, no ground is made out to entertain the contempt petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.