Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) THE matter is taken up as on day's list in view of urgency as prayed for.
(2.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Having regard to the tenor of the order, we are of the view that the writ application could be disposed of here and now. Leave is granted to take necessary ground here and now.
(3.) ASSAILING the order dated 1st February, 2011 passed in contempt application being CPC No. 14 of 2010 arose out of alleged violation of the interim order dated 23rd December, 2009 and the extension of that interim order dated 6th January, 2010 passed in O.A. No. 1864 of 2009, this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads such: "Issue notice to the alleged contemners for framing the charges. 2. List the matter for orders on 31.3.2011." Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has referred Rule 8 of Contempt of Court's (CAT) Rules, 1992 to contend that there was no reason assigned by the learned Tribunal below about primafaice satisfaction of the learned Tribunal that a case of contempt has been made out prior to passing the order directing issuance of notice. The relevant provision of Rule 8 reads such: "8. Preliminary hearing and notice. - (i) The Bench if satisfied that a prima faice case has been made out, may direct issue of notice to the respondent; otherwise, it shall dismiss the petitioner or drop the proceedings. (ii) The notice shall be in Form No. 1 and shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition or information, and annexures, if any, thereto. (iii) Service of notice shall be effected in the manner specified in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 or in such manner as may be directed by the Bench." ;