Summary

 The application was presented by learned senior counsel of this Court Sri K. B. Sinha,
who while taking resort to the provisions of Section 19 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 vehemently contended that punish ment of Dr. L. P. Misra is to be suspended so
that he may file appeal before the Apex Court.

 6. In obediedce to the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, myself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Singh commenced to hold
court at Lucknow with effect from 4-7- 1994.

 The Court also passed orders directing certain petitions to be transmitted to Allahabad
main seat of this Court as those petitions arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the
main seat of this Court but were wrongly filed at Lucknow Bench.

 The case shall stand out.

 Application No. 1096 of 1994-Dr. L. P. Misra and 4 others v. State of U. P. , which was
moved on behalf of all the contemners on 15-7-1994 itself by Shri Nagendra Mohan,
learned President of the Avadh Bar Association, it is averred that the impugn ed order
dated 15- 7-1994 is non-est inasmuch as the same has been passed without giving any
notice to the contemners and it suffers from the principle of audi alteram partem and
conviction and sentence awarded to the applicants be suspended at least for six weeks
enabling the applicants to file appeal before the Apex Court.

 25. At the juncture it is relevant to mention that under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India High Court has inherent and plenary jurisdiction to deal with such situations as this
Court being the Court of record may evolve its own procedure but the procedure should
not be oppressive and fanciful rather it must be fair and reasonable.

 In exercise of this inherent and plenary jurisdiction High Court being Court of record
having original and appellate jurisdiction can evolve its own procedure.

 27. As regards the point that the order dated 15-7-1994 passed by this Court is a nullity
and non est as it suffers from the principle of audi alteram pattern, suffice to say,
undoubtedly non-observance of the principle of audi alteram partem renders the order a
nullity the basic concept of this principle cannot be lost sight of.

 For the purpose let us see the sequence of events and the manner in which most
unfortunate, unfore seen and unheard of mishappenings took place in Court No. 3 of this
Court and in the Chambers (of B. M. Lal, J.) on 15-7-1994.
 In the process of hearing the contemners raised slogans, ordered the Court to rise and
stop functioning, tried to manhandle the Judges, one of the contemners caught hold of
one of us (A. P. Singh, J.) to force him to rise, used abusive language and threatened to
kill one of us (B. M. Lal, J. in open court and stormed on the dias.

 31. The same view has been followed and approved and quoted by the apex court vide
para 33, in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M. P. , AIR 1992 SC 904.

 "there can be no doubt that every court of record has the power of summarily punishing
for contempt. "

 32. In Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR
1992 SC 904, their Lordships of Apex Court ruled that the power of the Supreme Court
and the High Court being the Courts of Record as embodied under Articles 129 and 215
respectively cannot be restricted and trammelled by any ordinary legislation including the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

 Section 35 of the Advocates Act deals with the disciplinary proceedings against the
Advocates in respect of (professional) misconduct, to be taken up by the State Bar
Councils whereas Article 215 of the Constitution deals with the contempt proceedings in
respect of contempt to be drawn by the Court of Record even if a contemner happens to
be a practising advocate the Court can punish him to the extent depending upon the
gravity of the contempt committed.

 Application No. 1095 of 1994, Dr. L. P. Misra v. State of U. P. , in the considered opinion
of this Court no ground for suspension of the opera tion of the order dated 15-7-1994
passed by this Court and grant of six weeks time for preferring appeal before the Apex
Court is made out particularly in view of the settled legal position that the provisions of
Section 19 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have no application in the
proceedings initiated in exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitu
tion of India as discussed above in detail both the above referred applications as framed
and filed deserve to be rejected.

 43. Now while dealing with the two Habeas Corpus Petitions namely Habeas Corpus
Petition No. 292 (HC) of 1994, Anand Mohan v. State of U. P. and Habeas Corpus
Petition No. 291 (HC) of 1994, A. K. Bajpai v. State of U. P. , wherein common ground of
mistaken identity is raised, it may be mentioned that on behalf of Anand Mohan firstly it is
contended that though he is Kayastha by caste he does not write 'srivastava' in his name
and he writes simply Anand Mohan and not Anand Mohan Srivastava whereas in the
older dated 15-7-1994 passed by this Court 'srivastava' is transcribed which creates the
question of mistaken identity, secondly by filing a supplementary affidavit on 20-7-1994 it
 is further contended that there are two Anand Mohans in the Avadh Bar Association on
this count also his

 Similarly on behalf of Sri A. K. Bajpai also it is contended that there are 3 A. K. Bajpai in
the Bar his identity is also doubtful.

 46. As regards the plea of sur name taken by Anand Mohan that he does not write
'srivastava' his sur name he is not the eontemner Anand Mohan Srivastava, suffice it to
say that since Anand Mohan is Kayastha by caste non-writing of sur name 'srivastava' by
him or absence of full particulars in the order dated 15-7-1994 would not make his
indentity doubtful.

 48. it may be stated that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
equitable relief and it is expected of petitioners to approach the writ courts with clean
hands.

 50. In All LR 238 (239) a Division Bench of this Court, where peti tioner was convicted
and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, habeas corpus petition was filed, held that it is not
within the scope of writ petition to examine legality of the judgment as the same was
appellable to High Court.

 51. Similarly in ILR (1972) AP 836, where conviction was made by the High Court, writ
petition of habeas corpus was not entertained as remedy of appeal to Supreme Court by
special leave was not adopted by the petitioner.

 Their habeas corpus petitions are not liable to be entertained.

 Both the habeas corpus petitions are liable to be rejected.

 The High Courts in India are superior Courts of record.

 If certain mistake is found in mentioning correct initials or surnames etc. including

mistaken identity of the person the Court of record has power to correct that error.

 I had the occasion to go through the judgment prepared by brother B. M. Lal, J. with
which I fully agree the facts, reasons and conclu sion given and arrived at by him
respectively are no exception still looking to the extraordinary importance of the case and
the delicacy of the situation in asmuch as we ourselves are involved in the unfortunate
incident which com pelled us to take action against the petitioners and other persons for
punishing them for contempt of court, I in the fitness of things decided to write my own
separate but concurrent judgment.
 L. P. Misra came shouting slogans against the sitting of the courts and entered our court
room in an attitude of ransacking the court room.

 We passed order of conviction and punishment against Sri (Dr.)

 Since Sri Trivedi during the course of his arguments in the court room had contended
that notwithstanding the clear view of the Supreme Court in the case of

 73. It was a great relief hearing his humble but learned and polite (arguments)
submissions in the otherwise tense atmosphere which prevailed in the court since 5th
July, 1994 Sri Trivedi took strong exception to the incident which tools place in our court
room on 15-7-1994 he also condemned the lawyers who were involved in it, he also
apologised to the court for the same without any reservations, he urged that for the
confusion in the correct identity of the petitioners due to duplicity of names of A. K Bajpai
and Anand Mohan' which was brone roipoctivoly by two other lawyers of the court he
would not have either filed the writ petition nor would have appeared in its support to
argue in the court.

 On a second thought a supplementary affidavit was filed on his behalf by Sri Nagendra
Mohan on 20-7-1994 alleging that there were two 'anand Mohan' and one 'anand Mohan
Srivastava' who practice as Advocates in this court there is confu sion regarding the
identity of the actual convict.

 Similar is the plea of the other petitioner Sri A. K. Bajpai who took claims that there are
three A. K. Bajpai practicing in this court the judgment of conviction about the identity of
actual A. K. Bajpai, convicted by the court without proper identification of the petitioner by
the court is not clear the police has no authority to arrest him; he further alleges that he
was not present in the court on 15-7-94 at the time of the incident leading to the
conviction.

 The proceeding is initiated by the writ of the court commanding respondent to produce
the body and to show by what authority ha restrains or detains the body in whose behalf
the writ is issued.

 As a matter of fact both the counsel, namely, Sri Trivedi and Sri Sinha addressed the
court on the scope of review and emphasised that since the order of conviction as it
concerns petitioners was vague, in so far as their identity is concerned the same may be
recalled.

 78. It has been alleged in the writ petition of Sri A. K. Bajpai that there are three
Advocates with the name of 'a. K. Bajpai' but when con fronted in the court with the fact
 that Sri A. K. Bajpai, the present petitioner before the court was an erstwhile office bearer
of the Oudh Bar Association as Joint Secretary

 There is utter confusion in the writ petition .

 L. P. Misra, Sri Anand Mohan, Sri A. K. Bajpai, Sri G. K. Pandey and Mohammad
Shamim and the appli cation separately filed by Dr. L. P. Misra merit dismissal and are
dismissed summarily.