Contempt petition is not maintainable when representations are decided by reasoned order in compliance with directions.

The applicant, a Public Prosecutor in North Central Railway, filed a Contempt Petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He alleged non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 11.11.2025, which directed the respondents to decide his pending representations dated 08.09.2025 and 17.06.2025 regarding seniority and promotion via a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks.

The Tribunal had also ordered maintainance of status quo regarding the posting of Senior Public Prosecutor during that period.

The applicant eventually filed a supplementary affidavit acknowledging that a decision on his representations had been passed on 02.01.2026.

1. Whether the respondents committed willful or deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal's directions dated 11.11.2025 warranting action under contempt jurisdiction.

Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal the same jurisdiction and powers in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The guiding principle is that contempt action is only warranted in cases of "wilful or deliberate disobedience" of a court order, rather than mere technical non-compliance or a disagreement with the merits of the resulting administrative decision.

The Tribunal examined the supplementary affidavit and the speaking order dated 02.01.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2.

The order addressed all five grounds raised by the applicant: (i) the seniority of Shri Subhash Tiwari, (ii) the legal status of the standby list versus the main panel, (iii) the operation of standby lists for reserved categories versus UR categories, (iv) the inapplicability of RBE No. 98/2019 to the current cadre, and (v) the impact of decentralization on the selection process for Senior Public Prosecutor.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the directive to "consider and decide" the representations by providing detailed factual and legal reasons for their rejection.

Since the core direction of the Original Application was to pass a reasoned order, and such an order was indeed passed, the Tribunal determined that the essential mandate of the court had been fulfilled.

The Tribunal closed the Contempt Petition and consigned it to record, granting the applicant liberty to approach the appropriate forum if he remains aggrieved by the content of the respondents' decision.