THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C) No.19093 of 2026

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner has challenged an interim order issued by the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (for short 'TDSAT') issued in B.P. No.429/2025. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has stayed two disconnection notices issued by the respondent to the petitioner, on condition that an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is deposited by 05.06.2026, pending disposal of the said proceedings.

2. Petitioner and respondent are alleged to have entered into inter-connection agreements for re-transmitting signals of channels of the respondent to the subscribers of the petitioner. Raising contentious issues, regarding the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent, challenge is raised against disconnection notices dated 27.04.2026. Along with the Broadcasting Petition filed before the TDSAT, an application was filed seeking stay of the disconnection notices and also for a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner Rs.26.79 lakhs along with interest.

3. The Tribunal has, by the impugned order dated 26.05.2026, after considering the reply filed by the respondent, prima facie found that there is no case for the petitioner and also that there is no balance of convenience in its favour. Thereafter, the Tribunal stayed the disconnection notices on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.30,00,000/- by 05.06.2026, failing which, the respondent was given the liberty to disconnect the services. The aforesaid order is assailed by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. I have heard Sri. Aljo K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Santhosh Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Rohan Mathew, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Though this Court expressed a doubt as to the maintainability of this writ petition, considering that the situs of the Tribunal where the broadcasting petition was filed and the impugned order was issued, were both in New Delhi, the said question is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

6. On merits it has to be noted that, the petitioner is challenging only an interim order of the TDSAT that granted a stay of disconnection notices on condition of deposit of a certain sum of money. The impugned order specifically observes that there is neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to assail those findings by comparing the statement of accounts prepared unilaterally by the petitioner with that of the respondent, this Court is of the view that considering the nature and scope of a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interim order of a Tribunal, such disputed questions of fact need not and cannot be gone into.

7. Further, while granting an interim order of stay of the two disconnection notices, a condition was imposed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.30,00,000/-, despite the two essential requirements for grant of a stay, was found against the writ petitioner. TDSAT adopted a lenient view in favour of the petitioner. Such a view adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse at the instance of the petitioner, who is the beneficiary of such a lenient view. TDSAT has exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner on a condition, despite coming to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case or even a balance of convenience.

8. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion, unless the view taken is perverse or results in manifest injustice. In matters where a discretionary order is passed imposing a condition of deposit, the Constitutional Court acting under Article 226, ought not to interfere, unless