Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Department of Financial Services - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3668 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
Presiding Officers - DRTs - The court directed that if the appointments of the Presiding Officers to the three DRTs in Delhi do not materialize by 31.12.2021, the arrangement envisaged in the notification dated 13.12.2021 shall continue to operate till such appointments are being made.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India filed an affidavit stating that the report of the Search-cum-Selection Committee with regard to the selection of Presiding Officers for DRTs is awaited. The respondent No. 1 placed on record a notification regarding the additional charge entrusted to the Presiding Officers of several Debts Recovery Tribunals.
Finding of the Court:
The lack of Presiding Officers in the DRTs in Delhi is seriously impinging on the rights of litigating public, compromising their right to access to justice. The court directed that the arrangement in the notification dated 13.12.2021 shall continue if the appointments of the Presiding Officers do not materialize by 31.12.2021.
Issues: Appointment of Presiding Officers for DRTs in Delhi and the lack of Presiding Officers impinging on the rights of litigating public.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of ensuring access to justice by addressing the lack of Presiding Officers in the DRTs and directed the continuation of the arrangement in the notification if the appointments do not materialize by the specified date.
Final Decision: The court directed that the arrangement in the notification dated 13.12.2021 shall continue if the appointments of the Presiding Officers do not materialize by 31.12.2021.
ORDER
W.P.(C) 3668/2021
1. The Union of India has filed an affidavit pursuant to the hearing held on 02.12.2021. It is stated in the said affidavit that the report of the Search-cum-Selection Committee with regard to the selection of Presiding Officers for DRTs is shortly awaited.
2. The respondent No. 1 has also placed on record a copy of the notification dated 13.12.2021 bearing No. 7/1/2021-DRT issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 whereby the additional charge has been entrusted to the Presiding Officers of several Debts Recovery Tribunals in respect of DRTs where the Presiding Officers are not in office. So far as three DRTs in Delhi are concerned, the work of DRT-I Delhi would be managed by Shri R.M. Khushwaha, PO, DRT-Allahabad, the work of DRT-II Delhi would be managed by Shri Vimal Gupta, PO, DRT-Aurangabad, and the work of DRT-III would be managed by Shri R.M. Khushwaha, PO, DRT-Allahabad.
3. The notification states that the said charge has been entrusted "for a period upto 31.12.2021, or till joining of a regular incumbent, or till further orders, whichever is the earliest".
4. Considering the fact that we are already on 15.12.2021 and the Government is yet to receive the final list of selected Presiding Officers who would manage the three DRTs in Delhi, upon issuance of their appointment orders, it is possible that the appointment orders of the newly appointed Presiding Officers may not be issued by 31.12.2021. In case, they are issued before the said date, there would be no difficulty and they would be able to take charge and start discharging their duties. However, in case that does not happen, once again we will be faced with the same situation as we have been witnessing over the past few months till the notification dated 13.12.2021 was issued.
5. The lack of Presiding Officers in the DRTs in Delhi is seriously impinging on the rights of litigating public whose cases are pending before the DRTs, and their right to have access to justice is being compromised.
6. We, therefore, direct that, in case, the appointments of the Presiding Officers to the three DRTs in Delhi do not materialise by 31.12.2021, the arrangement envisaged in the notification dated 13.12.2021 shall continue to operate till such appointments are being made. However, in case, the respondent No. 1 considers it appropriate, for any reason, to re-allocate the work of the three DRTs without causing any break in continuity, the Union of India may issue a fresh notification for the purpose of re-allocation of work.
7. So far as the appointment of the Chairman of the DRAT, Delhi is concerned, the affidavit discloses that in pursuance of the vacancy circular dated 14.07.2021, the Search-cum-Selection Committee is also considering the applications for the post of Chairpersons of DRAT all over the country, including Delhi, and the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection Committee is awaited.
8. List on 19.01.2022.
CM APPL. 45197/2021
9. This application has been moved by the DRT Chandigarh Bar Association to seek impleadment in the writ petition or to act as an intervenor and to make suggestions. The suggestions have been incorporated in the application with regard to framing of rules, in respect thereof we have already passed our order dated 17.11.2021. It shall be open to the applicant to upload its suggestions on the website of the respondent No. 1, and the said suggestions shall also be examined along with the other suggestions at the time of framing of rules. Mr. Ravi Prakash states that the respondent No. 1 shall frame the rules within the time lines fixed in our order dated 17.11.2021.
10. Let a further status report be filed before the next date.
11. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Ensuring access to justice by addressing the lack of Presiding Officers in the DRTs.
The court emphasized timely hearings and intervention in cases where lower tribunals fail to function, maintaining status quo on property until hearings are conducted.
Courts can issue directions for urgent relief when the functioning of tribunals is delayed.
The Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal does not hold a civil post, and thus the Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters concerning such appointments under the Recov....
DRT cannot be said to be holding a civil post under the Union and therefore, CAT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A..
The court mandated a preliminary scrutiny of allegations against the Presiding Officer of DRT, emphasizing accountability and the need for judicial decorum.
The Union of India is obligated to promptly implement improvements for Debt Recovery Tribunals, as suggested by the Supreme Court, underlining the supervisory authority of High Courts as stipulated i....
Courts may direct interim measures in the absence of tribunal appointments to ensure access to justice.
The court considered the jurisdictional issue of the DRT's decision on the question of title and the impact of the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) on the petitioner's appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
