IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8359 of 2004. Alok Jain son of Shri G.C. Jain VERSUS The Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Date of Order ::: 26/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. V.P. Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent **** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter relates to the implementation of the order passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 08.05.1996, whereby a direction was issued to decide the approval granted in respect of the shop Nos.8,9 and 10 Gayatri Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur be not changed without hearing the petitioner and the approval order dated 08.06.1994 will remain in force till the respondents pass any other orders. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are interfering with the construction made by the petitioner as per approval dated 08.06.1994 without revising the same after hearing him, in these circumstances direction be issued. Mr. V.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents disputed the aforesaid statements and further submitted that the order of the J.D.A. is still in force. In my view, no further direction is required and in case any interference with the order is made by the respondents without complying with the aforesaid order then the petitioner will be free to move an application before the J.D.A. Appellate Tribunal for making reference under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 227 of the Constitution as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Vs . Vinay Chandra Misra, reported in 1981 CRI.L.J.283, wherein the Board of Revenue being tribunal has been held to be a Court subordinate to the High Court under Sections 10 & 12 of the Act of 1971 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows :- “15. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines “criminal contempt”. Section 9 emphasizes “nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience, breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this “Act”. Section 10 runs as under:- “Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself.” Then, there is a proviso which is not material for our purpose. The provision in Section 10 is but a replica of Section 3 of the 1952 Act. The phrase “courts subordinate to it” used in Section 10 is wide enough to include all courts which are judicially subordinate to the High Court, even though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution does not vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunal throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The court of Revenue Board, therefore, in the instant case, is a court “subordinate to the High Court” within the contemplation of Section 10 of the Act.” The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/