S.J. Vazifdar, J.— Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23rd October, 2012, passed by the Recovery Officer suo moto recalling an order dated 20th August, 2005, also passed by a Recovery Officer.

3. The case in a nutshell is this. A recovery certificate dated 26th February, 2004 was issued inter-alia in favour of the ICICI Bank Limited under The Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “DRT Act”). ICICI assigned the debt to the petitioner. On the petitioner’s application, the Recovery Officer by an order dated dated 20th August, 2005, added the name of the petitioner in the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI. Over seven years later, another Recovery Officer by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2012, suo moto recalled the order dated 20th August, 2005 on the basis that only the Presiding Officer and not the Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to add the name of the assignee in the recovery certificate. We have come to the conclusion that a Recovery Officer has jurisdiction to bring on record an assignee of the debt in the place