ORDER

Date : 28-02-2022 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the Bank of Baroda.

2. CRP No. 04 (AP)/2022, was initially filed by the petitioner before the Principle Seat of this Court at Gauhati which was registered as CRP No.11/2022, challenging the orders, dated 03.04.2021, 07.04.2021, 26.10.2021, 01.11.2021 and 29.12.2021, passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal in Guwahati in RC/43/2020 (Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Vs. Shambhala Traders and others) in a recovery proceeding initiated by the respondent Bank of Baroda against the petitioner.

3. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 07.02.2022, at Principal Seat, Gauhati, the learned Court was of the view that since the matter pertains to Arunachal Pradesh, the revision petition ought to have been filed in the Itanagar Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court. Accordingly, by the aforesaid order, it was held that the matter shall be heard by the Itanagar Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court and the Registry was directed to do the needful.

4. The petitioner filed yet another CRP No. 03(AP)/2022 before this Court, challenging the same orders that have been put to challenge in the CRP No. 11/2022, now re-numbered as CRP No. 04 (AP)/2022 on transfer from the Principal Seat, in addition to another order passed by the Recovery Officer dated

08.02.2022.

5. In the CRP No. 03 (AP)/2022, notice of motion was issued to the respondents by an order, dated 11.22.2022, returnable on 28.02.2022.

6. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though appeal lies to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati against the orders passed by the Recovery Officer which are impugned herein, but the necessity of filing of this revision petition has arisen because of the absence of Presiding Officer of DRT at Guwahati.

7. Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the Bank of Baroda submits that the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Guwahati has now been appointed by the Government of India, by an order issued on 20.02.2022, and the Presiding Officer is likely to assume the charge at the earliest. He further submits that Office of the Presiding Officer of the DRT Guwahati had fallen vacant only on 29.12.2021. Though there was a Presiding Officer of the DRT Guwahati, till

29.12.2021, the petitioner did not challenge the orders impugned in this revision petition before the DRT, which was passed much prior to 29.12.2021. He further submits that since the order passed by the Recovery Officer is an appealable order under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, this revision petition may be disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the DRT, Guwahati, the Presiding Officer of which Tribunal is likely to join very soon, in terms of the order of appointment dated

20.02.2022, as indicated herein above.

8. Upon consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, since the appealablity of the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, is not disputed, this revision petition shall stand disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

9. Resultantly, revision petitions stand dismissed as not maintainable, with a liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. In the event, the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal does not assume charge before the date fixed for auction, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse that may be available to the petitioner under the law.

10. Before parting with records, it is noticed, as has been discussed, herein above, that two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the same orders passed by the Recovery Officer except the order, dat