The court mandated a preliminary scrutiny of allegations against the Presiding Officer of DRT, emphasizing accountability and the need for judicial decorum.

JUDGMENT

Heard Shri. Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri. Anuj Kudesia, and Shri. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioners in Writ-C No.7725 of 2022 and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Shri. S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri. Anand Dwivedi, for the Opposite party nos.1 and 2, the Union of India and Shri. Gaurav Mehrotra, and Ms. Ritika Singh, appearing for the Opposite party no.3 and Shri. A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow, who appears in person.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following main prayer:-

"1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent no.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action after conducting a detailed enquiry under section 15 (2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, read with Rule 4 & 4 of DRT (Procedure for Investigation of Misbehaviour or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010 into the working, behaviour, temperamental issues, act and conduct of Respondent no.4 in view of his consistent misbehaviour with the Advocates and in-competency to act as Presiding Officer of DRT Lucknow as also highlighted in the Complaint, Dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure 8 to this writ petition) submitted by the petitioner.

(ii) Alternatively, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent no.1 to consider and transfer Respondent no.4 from DRT Lucknow to any other Tribunal on account of his vindictive approach which has further aggravated after Representation dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) compelled to be submitted by the petitioner after growing resentment amongst the members of the Bar on account of his repeated act of insulting, threatening and misbehaviour with Advocates."

3. It is the case of the petitioners as argued by their counsel that the private Respondent no.4, the Presiding Officer, arrayed in person Shri. A.H. Khan, has been passing whimsical and arbitrary orders and a reference has been made to some such orders passed by him in some matters in Paragraph-55 of the writ petition.

4. The allegations relate to nepotism and corruption and also of not following procedure as prescribed under the Rules. Such writ petition was filed by the Bar Association on 01.11.2022 and before such writ petition was filed two writ petitions were filed by two private parties namely Writ C No.7240 of 2022 [Shri. Chandan Rastogi v. District Magistrate/ Collector, Sitapur, and others] and Writ-C No.7362 of 2022 [Mrs. Roli Singh v. Debt Recovery Tribunal and another]. In these two writ petitions the prayer made by the petitioners was for quashing of the orders passed under the SARFAESI Act for ensuring recovery of loan dues and it was alleged that the petitioners have approached the D.R.T., Lucknow, by filing Securitization Application but the Bar Association has abstained from judicial work and copies of Resolutions dated 06.10.2022 and 10.10.2022 and 21.10.2022 were annexed to the writ petitions and it was alleged that the Bank while taking advantage of nonfunctioning of the Court due to the reasons of strike and non-performing the judicial work by the Advocates, will take physical possession of the Premises/ Secured Assets of the petitioners even during the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT because no orders had been passed granting interim relief and their applications remained pending. When the said writ petitions were filed, this Court took notice in its order dated 18.10.2022 in Writ-C No.7362 of 2022 and observed that the interim relief application along with Securitization Application of the petitioners could not be decided because of strike of Bar Association and that such strike was unlawful and that the interest of litigants cannot be allowed to suffer is reiterated time and again. The Court expected the DRT Bar Association, Lucknow to cooperate with the proceedings of the Tribunal and corrective measures be taken by the office bearers as well as by the