Compliance with a direction to decide a representation warrants closure of contempt proceedings.

In O.A. No. 1752/2026, the Tribunal had directed the respondents/competent authority to decide the applicant’s representation dated 9 April 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order dated 6 May 2026.

The applicant subsequently filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance.

The respondents stated that they had disposed of the representation by a speaking order dated 17 September 2026 and placed a copy on record.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s direction dated 6 May 2026 to decide the applicant’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether any matter remained for consideration in the contempt petition following that compliance.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a judicial direction does not require further consideration where the direction has been complied with.

The Tribunal also clarified that closure of the contempt petition does not prevent an aggrieved applicant from challenging the subsequent order through an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

The original direction required the respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order; it did not determine the substantive merits of that representation.

Since the respondents produced their speaking order dated 17 September 2026, the Tribunal treated the direction as complied with and concluded that no further issue survived in the contempt proceedings.

Any challenge to the substance of the later order was left for an appropriate proceeding.

It preserved the applicant’s liberty to challenge the order dated 17 September 2026 through an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.