JUDGMENT:- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows: Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. (2.) It is a contempt application alleging violation of the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2008 passed in WP No. 053 of 2008. There are as many as 3 persons as alleged contemnors-respondents in this application. In the cause title, in the prayer portion as well as in the pleadings of the contempt application, nowhere there is any specific mentioning of contemptuous act and conduct by the respective individual-alleged contemnors by identifying their such contemptuous conduct. The contempt proceeding is a quasi criminal proceeding in view of the punishment as specified under the statute namely imprisonment to jail and/or fine. In the contempt proceeding, when the alleged contemnor is found guilty of willful and deliberate violation of Courts order, their status changes to an accused to suffer punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (3.) It is a basic concept of the criminal jurisprudence that a person when is an accused of any charge should know the allegation against him so that he can answer the point properly. The said principle of criminal jurisprudence is squarely applicable in a case of contempt proceeding whereby and whereunder punishment is imposed to the alleged contemnor after finding him guilty. (4.) In the Rules framed by the High Court at Calcutta under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there is a specific provision that in the prayer portion, in the cause title as well as in the pleading there must be sufficient detail of contemptuous conduct to identify the action of the concerned alleged contemnor for the reason of giving an opportunity of hearing to that gentleman who is added as alleged contemnor in the contempt proceeding following the principles of natural justice. (5.) On a bare reading of the contempt application, we are not finding any specific charge of contemptuous conduct of the respective alleged contemnor, in the prayer portion, and in the cause title as well as in the pleadings save and except general statement that the alleged contemnors have violated Courts order by not considering the case of the petitioner for issuance of the certificate of fitness to the petitioner in respect of his vehicle in terms of the order passed by the Court. There is no foundational fact of contemptuous conduct of respective alleged contemnor. There is no foundational fact of contemptuous conduct of respective alleged contemnor. (6.) Considering that aspect of the matter we are of the view that contempt application is not in the form and no contemptuous act and conduct has been detailed in respect of alleged contemnors who are required to file their respective affidavits individually in terms of the Contempt of Courts Act and the rules framed thereunder. In view of such this contempt application is not maintainable. It accordingly stands dismissed. However, the dismissal of the application will not debar the applicant to move fresh contempt application if he is so advised.