High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 226 Against Interlocutory Tribunal Orders Recording Observations and Seeking Instructions

The Petitioners (GNCTD) challenged an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a contempt petition (CP/625/2025).

The CAT had noted that an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.08.1999, relied upon by the department to justify its actions, was not brought to the Tribunal's notice during the original hearing or review.

Consequently, the CAT directed the department’s representative to seek further instructions and remain present at the next hearing.

The Petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226, arguing that the petition should not have proceeded after they filed a compliance affidavit.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 against a procedural interim order of the Tribunal that merely seeks further instructions in contempt proceedings

2. Whether the Tribunal’s order in this case amounted to an impermissible substantive direction in a contempt proceeding

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which established the power of judicial review of High Courts over Tribunal orders under Article 226.

Union of India v. Shashank Sharma, which held that a contempt court cannot issue substantive directions or grant fresh relief beyond the original order.

V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, affirming that a contempt court must limit itself to finding whether a violation occurred and cannot pass "supplemental orders".

The High Court observed that the Petitioners were not "aggrieved" because the impugned order merely recorded observations and allowed the counsel to obtain instructions to prove that no contempt was committed.

The Court criticized the filing of such petitions as an undue burden on the judicial docket, noting a list of 92 matters for the day.

Distinguishing the present case from Shashank Sharma, the Court noted that while Shashank Sharma involved the Tribunal erroneously granting substantive promotions during contempt proceedings, the order in the present case issued no such directions.

Therefore, the Tribunal was merely exercising its procedural right to seek clarification on the non-disclosure of the 1999 OM.

An interim procedural order of the Tribunal seeking instructions does not warrant interference under Article 226, and no substantive relief had been illegally granted by the CAT.

The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed.