JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by Kirti Kapoor and four others, challenging the validity of notification dated 6.9.2018 issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), New Delhi. Prayer has been made to quash and set aside the aforesaid notification and pass any other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

2. The Central Government has issued the aforesaid notification invoking its power under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993'), thereby raising the threshold pecuniary limit of ten lakh rupees to twenty lakh rupees for filing application for recovery of debts in the Debts Recovery Tribunal by Banks and financial institutions. The notification has provided that the provisions of the Act of 1993 shall not be attracted where the amount of debt due to any Bank is less than twenty lakh rupees.

3. Ms. Anita Aggarwal, learned Counsel for petitioners, submitted that as per the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act of 1993, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable where the amount of debt due to any Bank or financial institution etc. is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. A plain reading of this provision reveals that while the provisions of the Act of 1993 shall be applicable to debts often lakh rupees and above but the Central Government with a view to bring more cases in the domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, can reduce the amount often lakh rupees to one lakh rupees but it has no authority to increase the amount of ten lakh rupees to any higher amount. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Others, II (2002) BC 194 (SC) : II (2002) SLT 556 : 96 (2002) DLT 726 (SC) : (2002) 4 SCC 275, learned Counsel argued that the Supreme Court therein held that for the disputes between the Banks and the other parties, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a debt claim of more than ten lakh rupees may be attracted but if it is less than ten lakh rupees, the ordinary Civil Court would have the jurisdiction. But the Central Government by the impugned notification has now created a situation where the claims of more than ten lakh rupees, upto twenty lakh rupees, would be excluded from the purview of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and sent to the Civil Courts. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mudit Entertainment Industries v. Banaras State Bank Ltd. and Others, II (2000) BC 578 (DB) : 2000 (2) AWC 1008 : (2000) 1 UPLBEC 25, learned Counsel argued that the High Court on interpretation of Section 1(4) of the Act of 1993 held that having regard to the contingency, debts less than ten lakh but more than one lakh can be included within the purview of the Tribunal. It is thus evident that the authority has been conferred on the Central Government to only reduce the amount of claim from ten lakh rupees downwards but with a rider that such reduction in the amount shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

4. Ms. Anita Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that imperativeness of enactment of the Act of 1993 also finds adequately reflected in the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, III (1999) SLT 482 : III (1999) CLT 47 (SC) : (1999) 4 SCC 69. It is submitted that the prime object of the enactment appears to be to provide for the establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and financial institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A purposive construction and interpretation of the Statute has to be therefore made so as to advance the purpose of the enactment and intention of the legislature. Reliance in this connection is plac