Allahabad High Court
DR. SURENDRA KUMARversusCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD AND 15 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that the question of compliance with the Tribunal’s order must be decided by the Tribunal and declined to interfere.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 11.08.2026 which granted him time to file a compliance affidavit and, failing that, directed personal appearance to explain non‑compliance with an earlier CAT order of 25.03.2025. The petitioner argued that he had already filed the affidavit and that the Tribunal had not identified any deficiency, making the further compliance direction and personal appearance order unjustified. The High Court held that the determination of whether the 25.03.2025 order was complied with lies exclusively with the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal had not specified any alleged deficiency. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order at this stage. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without interference.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the CAT's order granting time to file a compliance affidavit and directing personal appearance.
- Whether the determination of compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier order is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Subjects
- contempt
- compliance affidavit
- tribunal jurisdiction
- high court writ
- interference
- personal appearance
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13886 of 2026
Dr. Surendra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and 15
others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikeya Saran, Prabhav Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. The present writ petition arises out of an order dated 11.08.2026 passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in
Contempt Petition No. 15 of 2026 wherein time has been granted to the
petitioner to file compliance affidavit, failing which the respondent in
Contempt Petition, the petitioner-herein has been directed to appear in
person on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons as to why the
order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal has not been complied
with.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that despite filing
the compliance affidavit, the Tribunal instead of determining as to in what
manner the compliance filed by the petitioner was deficient in relation to
the directions issued by the Tribunal by its order dated 25.03.2025, has
required to further comply with the order and further directions for
personal appearance have been issued.
3. Submissions are made that necessary compliance of the directions
issued has already been made and, therefore, without indicating the nature
of deficiency in the compliance affidavit, direction to comply with the
order and on failure direction for appearance of the petitioner in person, is
not justified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions
seeking to establish the compliance of the directions issued by the
Tribunal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are firmly of the
WRIA No. 13886 of 2026
2
opinion that as to whether the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the
Tribunal has been complied with or not, the said determination has to be
made by the Tribunal only.
6. Apparently while passing the order dated 11.08.2026, no specific
aspect pertaining to the deficiency in the compliance has been argued by
the respondents and determined by the Tribunal.
7. In that view of the matter, the aspect of compliance needs to be argued
by the petitioner before the Tribunal and it goes without saying that
before proceedings further, the Tribunal is expected to make a prima facie
determination pertaining to the compliance said to have been made by the
petitioner.
8. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order at this stage.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 8, 2026
Sandeep/Ashok
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…