JUDGMENT : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the learned Advocate General of this State, by which he has refused to give his consent to move a criminal contempt petition against the sitting Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order dated 02.07.2019 is part of the record. Reasons have been assigned by the learned Advocate General as to why he is not giving his consent in his order dated 02.07.2019. 2. The petitioner before this Court is an officer in Indian Forest Service and presently serving in Uttarakhand. He had a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was being taken up by the Circuit Bench at Nainital, where an interim relief was granted to the petitioner on 18.09.2017. Meanwhile, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi where the petitioner was working earlier moved a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Principal Bench at Delhi for transfer of the case from Nainital to Delhi. By an ex parte order dated 27.07.2018 passed in the said transfer petition, the Chairman of the CAT, sitting singly, stayed proceedings in OA No.331/00790/2017 pending before a two member Bench at Nainital for a period of six weeks, and directed that notice be issued to respondent no. 1. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being WPSB No.359 of 2018 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2018 and the Circuit Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at Nainital was requested to decide the matter within a period of six months and a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) was also imposed upon the respondent. Meanwhile, the matter came up before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and it was taken up by the Chairman where an order dated 07.09.2018 was passed, which is as follows:- "The applicant herein i.e., Shri Sanjeev Chaturvedi, filed three petitions seeking transfer of three OAs, i.e., OA Nos. 2413/2016, 1342/2016 and OA No.436/2017 filed by him before this Tribunal to Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Nainital). 2413/2016, 1342/2016 and OA No.436/2017 filed by him before this Tribunal to Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Nainital). The respondents, on the other hand, filed this PT with a prayer to transfer OA No. 790/2017 pending before Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Nainital) to Principal Bench of this Tribunal. After hearing the parties at some length, I passed an order dated 27.07.2018 staying further hearing in the OA pending before Circuit Bench at Nainital. The applicant filed W.P. (C) No. 359/2018 before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the order dated 27.07.2018. At the admission stage itself, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court allowed the writ petition by imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- on Union of India. While setting aside the interim order dated 27.07.2018, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- "The Chairman of the Tribunal is amongst equal. He exercises the same judicial powers, which are being exercised by the other Members. We are of the considered view that the Chairman of the Tribunal while sitting singly could not stay the proceedings of the matter pending in OA No. 331/00790/2017. The order dated 18.09.2017 is also laconic and non-speaking. The order passed by the Chairman while sitting singly is wholly without jurisdiction. The attitude of the respondents towards petitioner, prima facie, is vindictive." It appears that Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Section 25 confers exclusive powers on the Chairman of the Tribunal to transfer any pending case from one Bench to another, and the power to stay the further proceedings in such matters is incidental. The High Court proceeded as though the order passed by the Allahabad Bench of CAT in OA No.331/00790/2017 was stayed in the PT. Further, the question as to how a writ petition could have been filed before Uttarakhand High Court challenging the order passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal was also not examined, obviously because, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, who filed this, was neither issued notice nor was represented. The comments made in the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court, in a way, are in the teeth of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The comments made in the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court, in a way, are in the teeth of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant himself invoked Section 25 by filing as many as three PTs before this Tribunal, and they are being heard by the Chairman itself. The conduct of the applicant is totally reprehensible and he is grossly misusing the process of Court. At one stage, on account of his uncontrollable and aggressive behaviour in the Court, it was thought of initiating contempt proceedings against him. However, a choice is given to him to mend his conduct. Shri V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for AIIMS, submits that they are taking steps to file SLP against the order of the Uttarakhand High Court. This PT is, therefore, directed to be listed on 05.10.2018 along with PT Nos. 288/2017, 286/2017 and PT No.287/2017." 3. Till this time, no SLP was filed by the AIIMS before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter an SLP was filed by the AIIMS against the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.02.2019 with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up this matter on a presumption that the order 07.09.2018 by the Chairman is contemptuous in nature, and it not only tends to scandalize and lower down the authority of the Court but it also tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and even tends to obstruct the administration of justice. 5. In order to initiate the proceedings for criminal contempt, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Advocate General seeking his consent in writing. This has been refused by the learned Advocate General, who has passed a speaking order on 02.07.2019, which is a part of the record as already been referred above. This is the order which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. In short, according to the learned Advocate General no contempt is made out. 6. Learned Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent in this matter says that this writ petition is not maintainable either against the consent or its refusal by the learned Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. In short, according to the learned Advocate General no contempt is made out. 6. Learned Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent in this matter says that this writ petition is not maintainable either against the consent or its refusal by the learned Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mehmood Pracha on the other hand, would argue that short of a writ petition, the petitioner has no other remedy and since every problem has a remedy, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also argue that this matter is still to be determined whether on the refusal of the consent by the learned Advocate General, the matter can still be taken up by this Court in its contempt jurisdiction. 9. What goes to the root of the matter is the problem whether a petition can be filed with allegations of criminal contempt when there is no consent of the learned Advocate General or even when there is a refusal of this consent. 10. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of the matter in the case of Chhitij Kishore Sharma Vs. Mr. Justice Lok Pal Singh,2018 2 UD 299, wherein it has been held that though a criminal contempt petition is normally to be filed either by the Advocate General or by any other person with the consent of the learned Advocate General before the Court under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but in exceptional circumstances, the Court can also take suo moto cognizance of the matter, but in that case when the petition is filed in the Registry, it shall not be treated as a contempt petition straightaway or a criminal contempt petition. Such matters shall always be captioned as "in Re (the name of the alleged contemnor) and such matters have to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in his chamber. Then "the Chief Justice may either himself or in consultation with other Judges of the Court may take further steps in the case as deem to be necessary". 11. Such matters shall always be captioned as "in Re (the name of the alleged contemnor) and such matters have to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in his chamber. Then "the Chief Justice may either himself or in consultation with other Judges of the Court may take further steps in the case as deem to be necessary". 11. Since a remedy is still available to the petitioner to file a petition which will go before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above case from paragraph no. 38 onwards, and the grievance of the petitioner can be very well taken up in terms of what has been held. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed.