- (1.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order dt. 08.08.2007, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') holding petitioners-non-applicants (hereinafter 'the non-applicants') prima facie guilty of contempt of the interim order dt. 28.02.2002, passed by it. By an interim order dt. 28.02.2002 in a reference under Sec. 83(8)(a) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, the Tribunal had directed that the respondent-applicant Kumari Ruchika Kala (hereinafter 'the applicant') not be dispossessed from plot No. 12 in scheme No. 23 (Sindhu Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti) and status quo with regard to the said property be maintained. Subsequently on 28.06.2002 it appears that despite the interim order dt. 28.02.2002, the boundary wall of the aforesaid plot was demolished by the JDA in a general drive in the area against encroachments. The Tribunal in the circumstances even though holding that the non-applicants were not present at the site of the demolition, held that it was incumbent upon the Secretary JDA to have informed the Tribunal as to which of its officers were involved in the anti encroachment drive wherein the boundary wall of the plot belonging to the applicant Kumari Ruchika Kala was demolished in spite of the Tribunal's interim order dt. 28.02.2002. On this reasoning the Tribunal apparently drawing an adverse inference found the non-applicants prima facie guilty of contempt of its interim order and referred the matter to this Court for proceedings under the contempt of Court Act.
(2.) Mr. Rinesh Gupta, counsel for the non-applicants has submitted that the reference filed by the applicant Kumari Ruchika Kala has since been decided on 21.03.2003. He submits that for contempt of a court's order to be made out it was incumbent upon the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the non-applicants were personally informed of the interim order dt. 28.02.2002 and had thereafter despite the said information acted in contravention of the aforesaid order making them liable for contempt. It is submitted that far from so holding and in spite of there being no evidence in regard thereto before the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded on mere conjecture and assumption drawing on an impermissible adverse inference in the absence of any statutory presumption and illegally held the non-applicants liable for contempt of its interim order dt. 28.02.2002 despite the fact that they were not personally informed of the interim order or even present at the time of the drive against the encroachment and demolition of the applicant's wall. It is submitted that the contempt of Court proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and without proof of service of the order contravention whereof is alleged, no person can be held in contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1971'). Counsel submits that in these circumstances no contempt of the interim order dt. 28.02.2002 passed by the Tribunal was prima facie or otherwise made out in the admitted facts of the case and the reference made by the Tribunal to this Court under the impugned order dt. 08.08.2007 be dismissed.
(3.) No one has appeared for the applicant-respondent No. 2, Kumari Ruchika Kala in spite of the fact that by the order dt. 08.08.2007 the Tribunal had referred the matter to this Court. Instead this Court had vide order dt. 04.11.2011 appointed Mr. Vijay Poonia as Amicus Curiae in the connected contempt petition listed on the reference made by the Tribunal.;