JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have made the following prayers in the instant writ petition.

A. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P1 and quash Exhibit P1 to the extent that additional charge of Debt Recovery Tribunal 2 Ernakulam was given to the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore-II, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction.

B. Issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 3rd respondent from functioning as Presiding Officer in additional charge of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to try, adjudicate and dispose of SA 372/2018 filed by the petitioners pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 Ernakulam as per Ext P1.

C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 1st respondent to entrust the additional charge of Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 Ernakulam to any other Presiding Officer or Judicial member of any other Tribunal established and constituted under any other law for the time being in force other than the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 functioning under the Government of India in Ernakulam invoking section 4(2)(a) and (b) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 till joining of a regular incumbent as presiding officer Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 Ernakulam.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that despite availability of a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Ernakulam, the 1st respondent, by the impugned order dated 04.01.2021, has entrusted the charge of DRT to DRT-II, Bangalore. This act on the part of the 1st respondent is totally without jurisdiction. It is urged that sub section 2 of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 deals with the provision regarding entrusting charge of the DRT. As per the provisions made in this Section, the charge of the DRT can be given to the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the event of non availability of Presiding Officer to man the DRT at Ernakulam, the charge ought to have been entrusted to some other Tribunal functioning in Ernakulam such as CGIT etc. My attention is drawn to the old provisions which came to be deleted with effect from 01.09.2016 to demonstrate that as per the previous provisions in Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the charge could have been given to another DRT. With this, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the legislature has consciously deleted this clause by substituting the same with amended provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 which prescribes that charge of DRT can be given to Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. Prior to its substitution by Act 44 of 2016, sub section 2 of Section 4 stood as under:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Presiding Officer of one Tribunal to discharge also the functions of the Presiding Officer of another Tribunal”.

This clause is deleted by substituting the following as sub section 2 of Section 4 of the said Act.

“4. Composition of Tribunal.- (1) ….

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), the Central Government may-

(a) authorise the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force to discharge the function of the Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal under this Act in addition to his being the Presiding Officer of that Tribunal”.

4. It is thus clear that the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 empowers the Government to authorise the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force to discharge the function of Presiding Officer of a DRT under the Recovery of Debts an