ORAL ORDER

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohit A. Gupta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Akshat Khare for respondent no.2 through video conference.

2.The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, order or any appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the circular/letter bearing No. F No.3/4/2018-DRT Government Of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services titled as “Clarification regarding enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of DRT under the RDDBFI Act, 1993-Reg” at Annexure F to this petition as ultra vires the provision of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and the notifications framed thereunder and to quash and set aside the same in the interest of justice.

(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, order or any appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the DRT-II at Ahmedabad does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the OA No.168/2019 annexed at Annexure-A and to direct the transfer of such OA No.168/2019 to any appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or to quash and set aside the proceedings in OA No.168/2019 pending before the DRT-II at Ahmedabad in the interest of justice.

(c) Your lordships be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the circular/letter bearing No.F No.3/4/2018-DRT, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services titled as “Clarification regarding enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of DRT under the RDDBFI Act, 1993-Reg” at Annexure F to this petition pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition in the interest of justice.

(d) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the proceedings of OA No.168/2019 pending before the DRT-II at Ahmedabad at Annexure-A to this petition pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(e) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3.Brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1) The petitioner availed financial assistance from respondent no.2 -IDBI Bank Ltd. As the petitioner could not repay the loan amount, respondent no.2-bank filed OA No.168/2019 before DRT-II, Ahmedabad for recovery of Rs.13,15,516/- from the petitioner and another defendant who is a guarantor.

3.2) According to the petitioner, the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal(For short “DRT”) was Rs. 10 lakhs as per section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (For short, “the Act of 1993”).

3.3) The pecuniary limit was increased to Rs. 20 Lakh vide notification bearing No. S.O. 4312(E) dated 6th September, 2018 published in the Official Gazette.

3.4) A writ petition being Special Civil Application No.21860/2018 was filed before the High Court of Rajasthan wherein vide order dated 26th September, 2018, the notification dated 6th September, 2018 was stayed.

3.5) Thereafter by Judgment dated 1st July, 2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, the said petition was dismissed upholding the validity of notification dated

6th September, 2018.

3.6) A further notification dated 11th July, 2019 was published modifying and amending the earlier notification dated 6th September, 2018 clarifying that for the matters filed before the date of earlier notification i.e. 6th September, 2018, the pecuniary limit shall continue to be Rs. 10 Lakh.

3.7) It is the case of the petitioner that, when the respondent no.2-bank filed OA No.168/2019, the notification dated 6th September, 2018 was in operation and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1993 would not apply to the application wherein the amount of debt is less than Rs.20 Lakh filed after 6th September, 2018.

3.8) It appears that the petitioner has also filed Consumer complaint No. 158/2017 before the State Consumer Forum claiming a sum of Rs.46,05,014/- against respondent no.2-bank.

4.Learned