The rejection of an application for quantification of loss by the Debt Recovery Tribunal solely on the ground of delay is illegal and causes material irregularity.

( 1 ) THIS application is made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned presiding Officer of the concerned Debt Re- covery Tribunal as on 25th January, 2000 under No. 16 therein. By such order, the presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tri- bunal rejected the application of the guar- antor about quantification of the loss oc- curred in respect of security when admit- tedly it was the custody of the Receiver ap- pointed at the instance of the Bank. The only point has been taken by the Tribunal that as because theft occurred in 1991 and the application made after 9 years, the applica- tion is nothing but attempt of dilatory tac- tics. Therefore, the same is to be dismissed. At the time of dismissal a question arose as to whether the learned counsel for the de- fendant is ready for peremptory hearing or not, which was answered in negative. How- ever, it has recorded that the defendant has declined to cross-examine the plaintiff-wit- ness, P. W. No. 1.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, an objection was put in by mr. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, appearing for the Bank saying that the application can- not be said to be maintainable in view of alternative forum of Appeal available for the litigants which was opposed by Mr. Sanjib banerjee learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner by saying that at the material point of time in early 2000, there was no forum for Appeal available in the State and now at this stage of final hearing, such point can- not be taken. Appropriate question of law involved in the matter, therefore alternative remedy if any, is no bar. However, since Mr. M. Rajashekhar, learned counsel, appear- ing for the Bank does not raise this point, the same has set at rest on that score. There- fore, there is no need to go into such con- troversy. Hence I have to consider the merit of the application.

( 3 ) APPARENTLY, an application belatedly made after a period of 9 years, may not be entertained by a Court of law unless it is supported by very sound and cogent rea- sons to entertain it. But according to me, in doing so, the Presiding Officer caused ma- terial irregularity by not considering the other points, if any i. e. whether there is any cogent reason available or not. How the court will come to an ultimate balance of claim unless such application is not taken into consideration on merit ? It could have been decided by the Tribunal by allowing a very short time bound programme so that there should not be any controversy about disposal of the matter.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, a question definitely arose before this Court why where was a delay of 9 years, therefore, I have to deal with the same at first. Mr. Banerjee, learned coun- sel, appearing for the petitioner contended that originally suit was instituted in the ap- propriate Court of Howrah in 1984 being title Suit No. 73 of 1984. In an application of the Bank a Receiver was appointed in re- spect of the hypothecated goods of the Bank in 1987. He made a suo motu valuation of goods. This petitioners took strong objec- tion about making valuation without leave of the Court. Court rejected prayer of the petitioners with this regard. However, with the intervention of the High Court in 1988 security Guards were posted. Bank itself made an application in April, 1992 in the court about taking appropriate steps by the receiver regarding theft occurred in the premises on 6th December, 1991. Bank filed fir in the police station on 9th January, 1992. In spite of repeated requests neither the Receiver nor the Bank disclosed the present position. By virtue of the Act the Suit was transferred to the tribunal in 1995 and renumbered. The present application is made in January, 2000. Mr. M. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, appearing for the Bank pointed out that this point could have been agitated before the Tribunal at the earliest but the same was not done, nor any coun- ter-claim or set up was made therein on that score. Therefore, go