ORDER : 1. This is an application by a stranger, under Rule 152 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, (for short 'High Court Rules'), seeking opportunity to intervene in a contempt of court case registered on the allegation that the respondent in that proceeding has committed criminal contempt. 2. Though the applicant has given vakalathnama and thus engaged advocates, he has chosen to appear and argue in person supporting the captioned application. This is criticized by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt of court case as well as by the learned Senior counsel for the contemnor on issues of eligibility to do so and the propriety of such procedure. The petitioner in the contempt of court case has also filed counter affidavit to this application seeking permission to intervene. 3. We have read the applicant's affidavit filed in support of his application. Having considered that affidavit and the contents of the application, the applicant does not appear to be a necessary, or even a proper, person to be heard in the matter. Notwithstanding that the petitioner in the contempt of court case as well as the respondent therein have objected to this application through their respective learned counsel, we are perturbed by the unsolicited and unwarranted howling by the applicant that he had been submitting before the different High Courts as well as the Honourable Supreme Court that this High Court is sublime in its performance, and, that he had projected before all those courts that one of the Judges in this combination of the Division Bench; namely, Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan (J) is emulative. Judicial institutions and the servants of the Sovereign, namely, the Judges who man it, ought to be left best to themselves. Pampering and fanning are deprecated spheres; never to be acclaimed as part of advocacy. Courts are not platforms for unavailable intrusions and they cannot be transformed to be spring boards for expression of opinions by one and all. It can never be permitted to be utilized for unsolicited interference without even a vestige of right of being heard in any particular judicial proceeding. 4. We may here and now note that it is the settled position of law that when this Court has taken cognizance of a case of contempt; particularly criminal contempt; the matter is then entirely as between the court and the contemner. 4. We may here and now note that it is the settled position of law that when this Court has taken cognizance of a case of contempt; particularly criminal contempt; the matter is then entirely as between the court and the contemner. This position notwithstanding, we are also ably assisted in the case by Adv. P.B. Krishnan, as the learned amicus curiae. We do not see any ground for any further intervening submissions. There is also no provision in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under that Act or the High Court Rules enabling such intervention. 5. While this order is being dictated, the intervenor interjected to assert that we had not accorded him a complete hearing. 'Hearing' is not an opportunity for demonstrative and vociferous belch of linguistic extroversion. The majesty and greatness of judicial systems of all civilized societies remind us that the judicial caravan will keep going, notwithstanding whatever! 6. We see no ground to allow the applicant's request. 7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. On pronouncement of this order, the applicant, again appearing in person, made an oral application for a certificate for appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court of India in terms of Article 134A of the Constitution of India. We have considered that and are of the view that no substantial question of law, much less any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India arises for decision or has been decided by us. Leave as sought for is ineligible and therefore, we decline to grant leave.