S. D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Motion of Contempt has been taken out by the petitioners - Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad and the Executive Engineer of the Housing division No. 1 at Baroda. The 1st and the 2nd respondents impleaded as the condemners in the proceedings are :1. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Gujarat Chapter, through its president Shri Tulsi Boda, add. : Yogkshan Complex. Water Tank Road, Gotri. Baroda-15. 2. Lok Adhikar Sangh. through its-Member add. : M-4/70/539, Shastrinagar, Opp. Pragatinagar, Naranpura, ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THE State of Gujarat through Collector, Baroda, Municipal Corporation of baroda through the Municipal Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police, baroda, happen to be the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively. ( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding, the orders in question require a reference. They are the orders passed by the First Court in Spl. C. A. No. 3426 of 199 8/04/1998. These orders run thus :"urgent Notice to the respondents returnable on 4/05/1998. In the meantime, respondents are not to take any steps to evict persons, who are already there in the property involved in this case. We also make it clear that under the cover of this order, no one should be allowed to enter into the property. Direct Service is -permitted. "[emphasis is ours] ( 4 ) GOING to the facts, the reference requires to be made to the averments made by the petitioner in the petition, namely, Spl. C. A. No. 3426 of 1998. The petitioners therein happen to be the alleged contemners before us in the contempt proceedings. They are named and styled as under in the main petition ;1. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties gujarat Chapter through its President mr. Tuisi Boda. 2. Lok Adhikar Sangh through its Members Mr. A. J. Yagnik c/o. M-4/70/539, Shastrinagar opp. Pragatinagar, Ahmedabad-63 ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the above said petition came to be filed in the field of Public Interest Litigation. Paragraph 1 in the sub-paragraph says that the petitioners crave liberty of this Court to file this petition by way of Public Interest for and on behalf of 3,000 slum-dwellers of Dholikui at Makarpura in Vadodara city, whose 555 kachcha and some. Paragraph 1 in the sub-paragraph says that the petitioners crave liberty of this Court to file this petition by way of Public Interest for and on behalf of 3,000 slum-dwellers of Dholikui at Makarpura in Vadodara city, whose 555 kachcha and some. pakka houses were demolished collectively by the Respondents on 25/03/1998 without giving prior intimation or notice to them in spite of the fact that they have been requesting for alternative place of accommodation under a scheme floated by the respondent Housing Board for the low income group on the adjacent land. ( 6 ) THESE averments made by the petitioners in paragraph 1 of the petition would go to show that the above said petition came to be filed as a public interest litigation. ( 7 ) WHEN the orders in question are referred, it is clear that urgent notice to the respondents returnable on 4/05/1998 was ordered to be issued. The First court in the said orders had said that in the meantime the respondents are not to take any steps to evict persons who are already there in the property. The orders make it clear that under the cover of this order no one should be allowed to enter into the property. Placing heavy reliance upon the second part of the order under which it has been said that no one should be allowed to enter into the property, the applicants before us in these contempt proceedings have come up with. the say that in spite of the above said orders, a number of people have again encroached upon the land of the Gujarat Housing Board and started putting up construction of huts. ( 8 ) LOOKING to the above said fact situation, the orders in question and the averments made by the applicants while taking out the motion of the contempt, three basic questions were raised. They can be formulated and answered thus : questions :1. Whether the Public Spirited People or the Body of Persons, instrumental in bringing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the benefit of a class or a section of the people, in the Representative Social Action for Public Good could be summoned and appropriately dealt with by the Court seized with the Contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ?2. The 1st and the 2nd Respondents, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case are liable to be appropriately dealt with in our Contempt Jurisdiction for the alleged Civil Contempt under the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 ?3. Whether the rest of the Respondents also could be similarly dealt with ? answers :q. No. 1 In Affirmative, of course theoretically in the present proceedings. Q. No. 2 and 3 In Negative, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case. ( 9 ) ON an earlier, occasion, we had made it clear that these are the vital questions, which require examination and the decision in these proceedings. Today, we have heard learned Counsel Mr. Munshaw for the applicants and learned senior Counsel mr. Haroobhai Mehta who appears on behalf of the respondents. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Mushaw has urged before us that the Public Interest litigation came to be filed by the respondents, namely. Peoples Union for Civil liberties and Lok Adhikar Sangh. The above said was a Public Interest Litigation for and on behalf of people and that if a number of people, in violation of the orders passed by this Court, have encroached upon the land in question, the respondents before us would be liable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, because they were the people to institute the Public Interest Litigation. They were fighting for the cause of the public and that, therefore, it was their duty to see that the people who were already evicted from the land in question should not re-enter and to effect the encroachment on the land once more. The emphasis being laid by learned Counsel mr. Munshaw on the aspect of the matter is that though the litigation was initiated by the respondents before us, it was for and on behalf of a number of people, who used to reside in either the kachcha or the pakka houses, and that if ultimately these people have cared to obey and honour the orders of the Court, then, naturally, such institutions who come before the Court in the field of Public Interest Litigation, should be made accountable and answerable. ( 11 ) THE contention coming from learned Senior Counsel Mr. ( 11 ) THE contention coming from learned Senior Counsel Mr. Haroobhai Mehta for the respondents on the other hand is that there is absolutely no averment even alleging or asserting any action or deed on the part of the respondents, which would amount to any action or deed which could be said to be the contempt under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Senior Counsel further urges that there is only a bare averment that a number of people have encroached upon the lands in question, but there is absolutely no mention as to who are the persons who had done this, that there are no pleadings or averments to the said effect and that the necessary particulars regarding the entire episode have not been given. ( 12 ) WE have examined the questions which arise for our consideration with the concern and the anxiety. It is true that the opponents had taken out the above said petition in the arena of the Public Interest Litigation and had obtained certain orders. The respondents before us were, therefore, acting for and on behalf of a number of people. Putting the same in popular parlance, it could be said that the respondents before us were acting in a representative capacity. Question No. I : ( 13 ) THE decision on this question would depend upon the role and significance of the Public Interest Litigation read with the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The broad features of the Public Interest Litigation are well- known. Anyhow, they could be summarised thus : traditional Doctrine of locus standi or standing is not being strictly adhered to. The emphasis is not on the proof of the legal injury to the petitioner. The emphasis is on the proof of an injury caused or likely to be caused to a class of people. The court would enquire into and may ask for the proof of the injury caused or likely to be caused to a class of people, calling for a social action by advancing a representative Cause. The Courts in P. I. L. takes upon the task to render justice to a class of people who for a variety of reasons like oppression, illiteracy, habit - practice - traditions, unawareness or lack of finance and advice, is prevented from having the access to the Justice Delivery System. The Courts in P. I. L. takes upon the task to render justice to a class of people who for a variety of reasons like oppression, illiteracy, habit - practice - traditions, unawareness or lack of finance and advice, is prevented from having the access to the Justice Delivery System. The causes in the arena of P. I. L. are studied, discussed and decided like inquisitorial or advisory proceedings, in contradistinction to adversarial proceedings. The hearing and deciding by the Courts begin and conclude with a sense of sympathy for that class of people and their woes brought before the Court, and while doing so, the Courts do not feel hesistant in calling for reports, suggestion and recommendations from various experts in the field. The Courts have given mandamus and have not felt helpless while issuing appropriate directions related to the Directive Principles. ( 14 ) DESPITE the above said broad features of the Public Interest Litigation, it cannot be said that the Public Spirited People or the Body of Persons instrumental in bringing the Public Interest Litigation cannot be summoned and dealt with appropriately under the contempt jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971. No decision makes such exception for such Public Spirited People or the Body of Persons if they fall within the scope and ambit of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Sub-sec, (b) of Sec. 2 of the Act, 1971. defines Civil Contempt and says that it would mean wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, they could certainly be summoned and dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Merely because they happen to be the Public spirited People or the Body of Persons bringing a litigation before the Court as a Representative Social Action cannot be permitted to go out of the scope and the ambit of the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Of course, before branding them as guilty for the Civil Contempt (herein Civil Contempt) or criminal Contempt, the necessary ingredients shall have to be established against them. But, this question taken up theoretically, in our opinion, requires to be answered in Affirmative. Question Nos. Of course, before branding them as guilty for the Civil Contempt (herein Civil Contempt) or criminal Contempt, the necessary ingredients shall have to be established against them. But, this question taken up theoretically, in our opinion, requires to be answered in Affirmative. Question Nos. 2 and 3 : ( 15 ) BUT, when the concentration is on the facts of the case and the averments made in the contempt proceedings, it is clear that nothing has been said against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before us. There is absolutely no averments as to how they are said to have committed civil contempt as understood within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. There are absolutely no averments regarding the wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or a wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. Nothing has been said regarding their involvement in the alleged action on the part of a number of people. ( 16 ) EVEN if it is accepted that a number of people who are not parties before us had returned to the site in question and have encroached upon the land, then also. there is not even a whisper in the pleadings before us that these respondents would fall within the purview of the definition of Civil Contempt. ( 17 ) THE same applies with equal force for the rest of the respondents, namely, the Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner of Police, Baroda, because there is absolutely no material before us so as to say that they have committed Civil contempt as understood within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971. ( 18 ) THESE two questions, therefore, require to be answered in negative on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. ( 19 ) THE above said thought process and the prominent features of the case, would lead us to the conclusion that the proceedings require rejection. We order accordingly. Notice shall stand discharged. No costs. .