JUDGMENT :

The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is sought to be invoked whereby a challenge has been made to an order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT) in IA/33/2016 arising out of OA No.216/20216.

2. By the impugned order, the learned DRT has appointed one Shri Saikat Mukherjee, respondent no.2 as the Receiver to take possession of the immovable as well as the movable properties which are the subject matter of the recovery proceedings instituted by the respondent no. 1-Bank before the DRT.

3. Before going to the issue which calls for determination, the facts of the case are required to be stated in brief.

4. The initial petitioner was one Smti. Aruna Sharma and the respondents were the applicant-Bank (respondent no.1), the Receiver appointed (respondent no. 2) and the company which had taken the loan (respondent no. 3). However, it appears that after filing of the present revision petition, vide an order dated 19.05.2017 passed in IA(C)/1617/2017, respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been impleaded. The said respondents are, Shri Pranjal Kumar Sharma (respondent no. 4), Shri Himadri Sharma (respondent no. 5) and Shri Bipul Boro (respondent no. 6). It further appears that during the pendency of this proceeding, the sole petitioner had passed away and accordingly, IA(C)/3732/2019 was filed with a prayer to substitute the sole petitioner by her son, who was already on record as the respondent no. 5. Though on perusal of the interlocutory application, it appears that the prayer was to transpose the respondent no.5 to the position of the petitioner, when the application was taken up for consideration, due to lack of representation, this Court was not properly apprised of the facts and circumstances for which the application was simply allowed by directing the applicant be substituted as the legal representative of the petitioner. Though no specific order for transposing the respondent no. 5 as petitioner was passed, in the interest of justice and fairness, this Court proposes to proceed with this matter by holding that the respondent no. 5 has been struck off and he is the sole petitioner in the instant case.

5. Coming to the merits of the challenge, the primary ground which has been urged in the petition is with regard to the jurisdiction while exercising powers under Section 19 (18) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act). It is submitted that the conditions precedent in exercising of such powers being apparently absent, the impugned order dated 24.11.2016 suffers from jurisdictional error and is liable to be declared as non est.

6. On the other hand, the respondent-Bank which has contested the proceedings and has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition has submitted that the ground urged is without any basis and there is no jurisdictional error of any kind which makes the order liable for any interference by this Court.

7. I have heard Shri O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is assisted by Shri TC Das, learned counsel whereas Shri D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M Sharma, learned counsel appears for the respondent-Bank.

8. Shri Bhati, learned counsel by referring to the 1993 Act, more specifically, Section 19 (18) submits that Section 19 is a part of Chapter-V of the 1993 Act which lays down the procedure of Tribunals. Sub-section (18) thereof is in connection with the procedure to be adopted for appointment of a Receiver and ancillary purposes. The learned counsel contends that the condition precedent for exercising powers to appoint a Receiver is that it has to appear to the Tribunal to be just and convenient that a Receiver be appointed. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, Shri Bhati, learned counsel has contended that the only consideration for passing the order is non-appearance of the contesting defendants and their failure