Facts
The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment passed in O.A. No. 1603/2024
Source reference: p. 1Counsel for the respondents informed the Tribunal that a writ petition (Diary No. 146320 dated 01.04.2026) had been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the original order
Source reference: p. 2, para 1This writ petition was accompanied by an application for a stay of the Tribunal’s directions
Source reference: p. 2, para 1The respondents contended that the matter was pending adjudication before the superior court and likely to be listed shortly
Source reference: p. 2, para 1Issues
1. Whether contempt proceedings ought to be continued when the underlying order is under challenge and a stay application is pending before a High Court.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt proceedings should generally be closed or deferred if an appeal and a stay application are pending before a superior court.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2Delhi High Court decision in Rajbir Singh v. Rajeev Verma (2013: DHC: 4580), which followed the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Ram Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav Ors. (2001).
Source reference: p. 2, para 2; p. 4These precedents establish that in view of a pending stay application in an appeal, contempt proceedings are not fit to be initiated or continued, though they may be revived if the stay is ultimately refused
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal evaluated the status of the litigation and noted that the respondents had actively moved the High Court to challenge the O.A. order and sought interim relief
Source reference: p. 2, para 1Applying the ratio from Rajbir Singh and Ram Avadh Singh, the Bench reasoned that since the High Court was seized of the matter, continuing the contempt petition would be premature
Source reference: p. 2-3The Tribunal concluded that judicial propriety requires the closure of the contempt case to allow the superior court to decide on the stay application, while ensuring the petitioner’s rights remain protected through a "liberty to revive" clause
Source reference: p. 4, para 3Holding
The Tribunal held that the Contempt Petition was not fit for continuation at this stage given the pending writ and stay application.
The CP was closed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged; however, the Tribunal granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the Tribunal for the revival of the CP should the stay application be dismissed or the occasion otherwise arise
Source reference: p. 4, para 3Original Court PDF
Raja Ram MeenavsSRINIVAS KATIKITHALA Secretary, M/o Urban affairs and development and others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in