GOPAL KRISHNA SHARMA, J.—By this reference the Registry, Board of Revenue has moved this Court to take action against Todar Mal Jain, Printer and Publisher, Rajasthan Patrika Daily, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika Daily, Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Daily and Local Editor, Rajasthan Patrika for committing the offence of Contempt of Court. 2. Seven appeals were pending in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and those appeals were being heard by Single Bench constituted by Hon-ble Shri Sobha Lal M. Dashora. The arguments were heard in those appeals on 20/3/86 and judgment was reserved in all those cases. On 21/3/86 a complaint was filed by Shri Todar Mal, Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Ajmer respondent No. 2 in all these 7 appeals A news item also appeared in the Daily News paper "Rajasthan Patrika" dt. 24/3/86 at page No. 1 column 3 of the last page under the heading:- ^^jktLo e.My ds lnL; nkksjk ds f[kykQ fkdk;r** 3. The learned member of the Board of Revenue, Shri Shobha Lal M. Dashora took judicial notice of the said news item and passed an order on the Order-sheet on 31. 3. 86 deciding that the respondents have committed offence of Contempt of Court. It was further directed to move to the Honble High Court u/s. 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for taking necessary action against respondents. In compliance of that direction, the Registry Board of Revenue has addressed a letter to Addl. Registrar of this Court and attached some Annexures including the order dt. 30. 3. 86 passed by learned Member Shri Shobha Lal M. Dashora, the complaint dt. 21. 3. 86 sent by Todar Mal Jain to Shri Saxena in the form of D. O. letter and the cutting of the news item Rajas-than Patrika. The copy of the order dt. 31. 3. 86 passed by the learned Member Shobha Lal M. Dashora, was also annexed. 4. On receipt of this letter a notice was sent to respondents and in compliance to that notice they have put in their appearance. 5. Shri Todar Mal Jain, non-petitioner No. 1 has filed his objections. Similarly, objections have been submitted on behalf of other non-petitioners No. 2 to 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners have raised preliminary objections to the effect that the letter sent by Registry Board of Revenue addressed to Addl. 5. Shri Todar Mal Jain, non-petitioner No. 1 has filed his objections. Similarly, objections have been submitted on behalf of other non-petitioners No. 2 to 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners have raised preliminary objections to the effect that the letter sent by Registry Board of Revenue addressed to Addl. Registrar of this Court, cannot be treated as a complaint. As such no action can be taken on such letter. Another objection has been raised, is that the learned Member Shri Dashora was acting as Appellate Authority hearing appeal against the Order of Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) and as such it was not a court and not subordinate to High Court. Therefore, no action for contempt of court can be taken in such matters. 7. On there preliminary objections we have heard all the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties. It was argued on behalf of the non-petitioner that non-petitioner No. 1, Shri Todar Mal Jain is a Competent Authority according to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter referred as the "Act"). There is no doubt about this fact that Todar Mal Jain is a Competent Authority. Section 12 of the "Act" constitutes a Tribunal to hear appeal against the order of Competent Authority. According to this section 12 of the "Act" the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazettee constitute one or more Urban Land Tribunal or Tribunals. The Tribunal shall consist of a sole member who shall be a officer of the rank of a Commissioner of a Division or a Member of Board of Revenue. If any person is aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority u/s. 11, he may within 30 days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the vacant land is situated as provided in sub-section 4 of Sec. 12 of the Act. Thus by reading sec. 12, it is clear that the State Government constitutes a Tribunal. A tribunal may consist of any officer of the rank of the Commissioner or may consist a Member of Board of Revenue. In the present case the Government by notification has appointed a member of Board of Revenue to hear appeals against the order of Competent Authority. 12, it is clear that the State Government constitutes a Tribunal. A tribunal may consist of any officer of the rank of the Commissioner or may consist a Member of Board of Revenue. In the present case the Government by notification has appointed a member of Board of Revenue to hear appeals against the order of Competent Authority. Thus the Tribunal is not a Court created by a Statute but a creation of the State Government by a notification in the form of Tribunal. The State Government may appoint anyone to hear appeal against the order of Competent Authority. An officer of the rank of Commissioner can be appointed and a Member of the Board of Revenue can also be appointed as Member of the Tribunal hearing the appeals. Thus the constitution of the Tribunal is not by any Statute but by a notification issued by a State Government. Whether such Tribunal is a Court is to be judged. It was argued on behalf of the non-petitioners that a Court is always created by an Act or by a Statute. A Court is never created by any notification of the Government. But the Tribunal for hearing appeals against the orders of Competent Authority has been created by a notification. It is not a creation by a Statute or an Act, therefore, it cannot be designated as a Court. As the Appellate Authority has been created by a notification and designated as a Tribunal it indicates that it is not a Court, otherwise it could not have been labelled as Tribunal. Section 33 of the Act says that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Competent Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to such Authority as may be prescribed (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Appellate Authority") provided that Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of the 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing an appeal in time. Thus this Section 33 provided an appeal against the order of the Competent Authority and which is a tribunal constituted u/s. 12 of this Act and the Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government through a notification. Thus this Section 33 provided an appeal against the order of the Competent Authority and which is a tribunal constituted u/s. 12 of this Act and the Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government through a notification. So the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the non-petitioners has substance and we also agree with the contentions and hold that the Appellate Authority which was hearing the appeals against the order of the Competent Authority Shri Todar Mal Jain, is not a Court. When it is not a Court it is not subordinate to High Court and no contempt proceedings can be initiated by this High Court in such matters as referred by Registrar Board of Revenue. 8. Another objection is with regard to the fact that the letter addressed by the Board of Revenue is not a complaint but it is simply a letter. No action can be taken on such letters. There must be a complaint filed before the High Court and on that complaint the High Court may proceed to take action. While referring Sec. 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 hereinafter referred as the "Act 1971", it was argued that in case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate-Court the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by a subordinate-Court or on a motion made by the Advocate General or, in relation to Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazttee, specified in this behalf. In sub-clause 3, it has been mentioned that every motion or reference may under this Section shall specify the contempt on which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. 9. It was argued that the letter addressed by the Registrar Board of Revenue is not a complaint but is a letter addressed to the Additional Registrar. It does not specify the contempt which has been committed by the non-petitioners. There must be a complaint, a specified allegation showing that on account of these facts the non-petitioners have committed Contempt of Court. As this is not a regular complaint or not even a form of complaint but simply a letter addressed to Addl. Registrar which has been annexed by certain documents. 10. It was also argued that as alleged in the letter Todar Mal Jain, Non-petitioner No. 1 has sent a D.O. letter dt. 21. As this is not a regular complaint or not even a form of complaint but simply a letter addressed to Addl. Registrar which has been annexed by certain documents. 10. It was also argued that as alleged in the letter Todar Mal Jain, Non-petitioner No. 1 has sent a D.O. letter dt. 21. 3. 86 addressed to Shri Saxena who is the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. That letter is Annexure B and on receipt of this letter Shri Saxena has marked it to Shri Dashora with this note "May kindly see this grateful to be apprised of the situation". This indicates that Shri Saxena forwarded this letter to Shri Dashora for his perusal and also called for his comment. There is nothing on the record which is by way of comment by Shri Dashora learned Member. On the other hand on 31.3. 86 Shri Dashora passed an order which is Annexure-5, that he does not want to deliver the judgment on those appeals and forwarded appeals along with contempt petition No. 4/85 to be put up before another Bench. On 23. 3. 86 Shri Dashora the learned Member passed the order that criminal complaint against the non-petitioners for contempt of Court u/s 15(2) of the Act 971 be registered and a complaint be sent to the Rajasthan High Court through the Registrar Board of Revenue. So this order is not a complaint but it is a direction to the Registrar Board of Revenue to lodge a criminal complaint of Contempt of Court. In compliance to this order the Registrar Board of Revenue has forwarded a letter along with some Annexures, but in our opinion this letter cannot be treated as a complaint. No doubt, a complaint to be forwarded through Registrar Board of Revenue, but it should be in the form of a letter addressed to the Additional Registrar of this Court. The complaint should specify the allegations on which the contempt has arisen. Therefore, we agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that this letter is not a complaint and no action can be taken on the basis of such letter. 11. In view of our above decision we need not to go into the question whether addressing such a letter by Shri Todar Mal Jain to the Chairman Board of Revenue amounts to Contempt of Court or not. 12. 11. In view of our above decision we need not to go into the question whether addressing such a letter by Shri Todar Mal Jain to the Chairman Board of Revenue amounts to Contempt of Court or not. 12. We are of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has substance and we see no ground to proceed with the Contempt proceeding. The proceedings are, therefore, dropped and the notice issued to the non-petitioner is discharged.