JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order dated 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 dated 28.02.2002, passed by it. 2. By an interim order dated 28.02.2002 in a reference under Section 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 dated 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 dated 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. 3. 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 dated 28.02.2002 and had thereafter despite the said information acted in contravention of the aforesaid order making them liable for contempt. 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 dated 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 dated 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 dated 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 dated 08.08.2007 be dismissed. 4. No one has appeared for the applicant-respondent No.2, Kumari Ruchika Kala in spite of the fact that by the order dated 08.08.2007 the Tribunal had referred the matter to this Court. Instead this Court had vide order dated 04.11.2011 appointed Mr. Vijay Poonia as Amicus Curiae in the connected contempt petition listed on the reference made by the Tribunal. 5. Heard. Consider. 6. In my considered opinion, there is substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the non-applicants. Contempt proceedings under the Act of 1971 are indeed quasi criminal in nature and for one to be held guilt of contempt for contravention of the order passed by the Tribunal, proof of service of the aforesaid order has to be established. In the instant case, service of the interim order dated 28.02.2002 was admittedly not made on the non-applicants. Contempt proceedings under the Act of 1971 are indeed quasi criminal in nature and for one to be held guilt of contempt for contravention of the order passed by the Tribunal, proof of service of the aforesaid order has to be established. In the instant case, service of the interim order dated 28.02.2002 was admittedly not made on the non-applicants. The Tribunal in the circumstance instead proceeded on impermissible conjecture and misdirected itself on the burden of proof in holding the non-applicants liable for contempt of its interim order dated 28.02.2002 as if by way of collective punishment only because it was not informed who were the officers in the anti-encroachment drive in which the wall of the applicant's plot was demolished. That cannot be sustained. Aside of the above, from a reading of the impugned order dated 08.08.2007, it transpires that it was not the case of the applicant Kumari Ruchika Kala that the non-applicants prima facie found to be in contempt by the Tribunal were present at the site at the time of demolition of boundary wall of the plot in question during the anti encroachment drive. 7. In my considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case, no contempt of court of the interim order dated 28.02.2002, passed by the JDA Tribunal was made out. The impugned order dated 08.08.2007 holding to the contrary is based on mere conjecture and is against the first principle of not holding a person guilty of the contempt unless the order in issue is brought to his notice. I would therefore allow the petition and quash and set aside the order dated 08.08.2007, passed by the Tribunal.The petition is accordingly allowed.Petition Allowed. *******