A tribunal must consider and decide a pending interim prayer in accordance with law.

The petitioner filed Application No. 20381/2026 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Kalaburagi, raising a claim that the Lokayukta and the Department had initiated parallel proceedings against him on the same charges, and seeking interim relief.

The KAT issued notices and sought responses on the alleged parallel proceedings, but adjourned the matter several times without deciding the interim prayer.

The petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus requiring the KAT to consider and decide that prayer.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that where an interim prayer before a tribunal remains undecided, the High Court may direct the tribunal to consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; such a direction does not determine the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Court cited no statute or precedent addressing the substantive permissibility of parallel proceedings.

The KAT had received the application and heard the petitioner’s contention, but its subsequent orders addressed notice, responses and adjournments rather than deciding the interim prayer.

Given that continued non-determination risked rendering the application redundant, the High Court directed the KAT to decide the interim prayer.

It did not decide whether parallel proceedings on the same charges were impermissible, leaving that question open for consideration in the proceedings before the KAT.

The High Court expressly made no adjudication on the merits and kept the parties’ contentions open.

The pending interlocutory application was also disposed of as not surviving for consideration.