(1) ON 15/03/1999, an order was passed by this court in this I.A. staling that prima facie, there was violation of the orders of this court by Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabbarwal and his wife Harpreet KauR.We directed notice to be issued to the above said two persons and also directed the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to see that the notices were served on the abovesaid two persons. There was a further direction that Shri Prabhjot Singh and Harpreet Kaur were to be present in this court today, the 5th of April, 1999 at 2 P.M. The Commissioner of Police was also directed to ensure the presence of the two persons today before this court.

(2) THE Office Report dated 3/04/1999 shows that no compliance report has been received so far from the Commissioner of Police. However, the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Harpeet Kaur submits that she is present in the court and on her behalf, time is requested for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued by this court. In the abovesaid order, we had also directed notice to be issued to M/s. Shikha Developers Ltd., Delhi. The Office Report shows that they have been served and their learned counsel seeks time to file counter affidavit.

(3) WE grant two weeks time for filing counters.

(4) SO far as Prabhjot Singh is concerned, he is not present in spite of the courts order, (though it was represented by a person who was present in the court that Shri Prabhjot Singh was waiting outside for some time). Be that as it may. He is not present inside the Courtroom. DR.A.M. Singhvi, Senior Counsel who appeared on instructions from Shri Sohail Dutt, advocate on behalf of Smt. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advocate on Record stated that Shri K.J. Singh, uncle of Shri Prabhjot Singh (who is present in court), had instructed him to inform the court that Shri Prabhjot Singh would be able to present ] himself physically in this court if this court could give him protection against arrest pursuant to other arrest warrants issued against him by different courts or authorities. The learned Counsel also submitted that Shri Prabhjot Singh was willing to file an affidavit as directed by this court by order dated 1 5/03/1999. It was also contended that Shri Prabhjot Singh had not violated any orders of this court and had not committed any contempt.

(5) THE question whether Shri Prabhjot Singh has committed any contempt of earlier order of this court is a matter which can be decided after he files a counter affidavit. So far as the order of this court dated 1 5/03/1999 is concerned, we are of the opinion that when his presence was required today, the least he could have done was to file an affidavit in this court seeking exemption from appearance before this court. Instead, he has chosen to instruct his uncle Shri K.J. Singh, to inform his counsel and the Senior Counsel that he has some difficulty in appearing in this court unless some sort of protection is granted to him.

(6) ONE would have expected a person who has knowledge of orders of this court to be present today at 2 P.M. or seek exemption from personal appearance. Neither has been done. After hearing the Senior Counsel Dr. A.M. Singhvi, we are prima facie, of the view that the absence of Shri Prabhjot Singh today despite the knowledge and that too, without filing any application for exemption, prima facie, amounts to an independent contempt by itself for which also he is required to give his explanation.

(7) THE Commissioner of Police should have informed this court as to the reasons for which he was not able to have the notice, issued by this court served on Shri Prabhjot Singh. It is rather unfortunate that not only no counsel appears on his behalf but not even information has been furnished to the Registry as to what action he has taken pursuant to the directions of this court contained in our order dated 15/03/1999 asking him to see that notice is served on Prabhjot Singh.

(8) A notice will issue to