V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, 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. Aljo K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised various contentions in an attempt to persuade us to interfere with the judgment under appeal. According to the learned counsel, the records in the possession of the appellant would disclose that substantial amounts are due from the respondent to the appellant. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declining to exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the writ petition had been instituted invoking both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

7. Insofar as the contention relating to the payments allegedly due from the respondent to the appellant is concerned, we find that the TDSAT had examined the materials on record, including Annexures A and C, and had arrived at a prima facie conclusion that a sum of ₹55 lakhs was due from the appellant to the respondent. It was in the said circumstances that the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant an interim stay, subject to the condition that the appellant remits a sum of ₹30 lakhs. The exercise of such discretion, based on a prima facie assessment of the materials available on record, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be characterized as arbitrary, perverse, or warranting interference.

8. Insofar as the submission that the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, the argument, according to us, is suicidal. It is well settled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original in nature. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited, where interference qua an interlocutory order of a subordinate court or tribunal is concerned. In such matters, the High Court has to consider the question as to whether such an interlocutory order of the subordinate court or tribunal was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or that the said court or tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction or that the order passed by it had resulted in failure of justice. Equally settled is the principle that no intra-court appeal would ordinarily lie against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

9. We also notice that the learned Single Judge chose to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and, in fact, adopted a rather lenient approach in favour of the appellant. Such indulgence was shown notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the learned Single Judge regarding the maintainability of the writ petition itself, particularly in view of the fact that the situs of the Tribunal before which the Broadcasting Petition was instituted, as well as the place where the impugned order was passed, were both situated in New Delhi.

10. Having carefully gone through the order passed by the TDSAT, produced as Ext.P1, we find that the order clearly discloses the reasoning process adopted by the Tribunal and the grounds that weighed with it while imposing conditions for the grant of interim stay. The order reflects a conscious application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and cannot be said to suffer from any manifest arbitrariness or irrationality. These aspects were duly taken note of by the learned Single Judge while repelling the challenge against the order of the Tribunal. At the same time, the learned Single Judge displayed considerable indulgence by granting the appellant additional time to comply with the conditional order.

11. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are unable to discern any jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or other infirmity in the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeal. We are satisfied that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal as well as the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge are fully justified on the facts of the case.

12. We, therefore, find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment under appeal.

This Writ Appeal is dismissed.