The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to rectifying jurisdictional errors or failure of justice; it does not extend to routine interference with interlocutory orders of specialized tribunals, nor do intra-court appeals generally lie against such supervisory orders.

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.19093 OF 2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

1. The above captioned Writ Appeal is preferred against judgment dated 10.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge as per which, the court while refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi in Misc. Application. No. 130 of 2016 in Broadcasting Petition No. 429 of 2025 granted a breathing time to the appellant to comply with the conditions imposed by the Appellate Tribunal.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Aljo K Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Santhosh Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Sri. Rohan Mathew, the learned counsel.

3. On a perusal of the records, we find that the appellant had approached the TDSAT by filing the aforesaid application seeking, inter alia, withdrawal of the disconnection notice issued by the respondent. The appellant had also sought a declaration that it was entitled to recover a sum of ₹26,79,275/- together with interest from the respondent. Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that substantial amounts were due and payable by the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that the appellant itself was in arrears and that significant amounts remained outstanding from the appellant. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the materials placed on record and came to the prima facie conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the grant of an unconditional interim order. The Tribunal further found that the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the appellant.

4. Insofar as the monetary claims were concerned, the Tribunal observed that the records, at least prima facie, indicated that substantial amounts were due from the appellant to the respondent. After examining the relevant documents and arriving at a tentative conclusion that the amount payable to the respondent was approximately ₹55 lakhs, the Tribunal, as an interim measure, granted a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the disconnection notice and related actions. However, such protection was made conditional upon the appellant remitting a sum of ₹30 lakhs to the respondent, subject to the final outcome of the Broadcasting Petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after a careful consideration of the order passed by the TDSAT and the records produced, came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had acted well within the bounds of its jurisdiction and had exercised its discretion in a judicious and lawful manner. The learned Single Judge observed that, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a specialized Tribunal unless it is demonstrated that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or in clear disregard of settled legal principles. The learned Single Judge found no such infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to comply with the conditional order, the learned Single Judge granted the appellant some additional breathing time for remitting the amount directed by the Tribunal.

6. Sri. A