Contempt petition becomes infructuous upon respondents’ compliance with the direction to pass a speaking order.

The applicants had filed O.A. No. 454/2026 concerning their representation dated 24 January 2026.

On 6 February 2026, the Tribunal directed the competent authority of the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the order, and to grant consequential relief within a further period of 45 days if the decision was in the applicants’ favour.

The applicants thereafter instituted the present contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.

During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 12 May 2026, a copy of which was received by the applicants.

The applicants’ counsel confirmed such receipt before the Tribunal.

Whether the respondents had complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 454/2026 by passing and furnishing a speaking order on the applicants’ representation dated 24 January 2026?

Whether the contempt petition should continue after the respondents passed the speaking order and the applicants acknowledged its receipt?

The Tribunal applied the principle that a contempt or compliance petition is maintainable only so long as there is an alleged or continuing non-compliance with the operative directions of the Tribunal.

Where the respondents have substantially complied with the direction by passing and furnishing the required speaking order, the contempt proceedings ordinarily serve no further purpose.

The Tribunal also recognised that any independent grievance regarding the correctness, legality, or merits of the speaking order may be pursued by the applicants before an appropriate forum.

The original order required the respondents to decide the applicants’ representation through a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents subsequently passed the speaking order dated 12 May 2026, and the applicants’ counsel expressly confirmed that the order had been received.

Since the specific direction issued in the original O.A. had thereby been complied with, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in keeping the contempt petition pending.

The Tribunal did not examine the merits or legality of the speaking order and preserved the applicants’ right to challenge any surviving grievance before an appropriate forum.

C.P. No. 555/2026 was accordingly closed, and the notices were discharged.

The applicants were granted liberty to agitate any grievance arising from the speaking order before an appropriate forum.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.