The Gujarat High Court has disposed of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Seeking Appointment Of Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
The plea, which has been moved by Advocate Nipun Singhvi through advocates Vishal J Dave, Dr. Avinash Poddar and Hiral U Mehta, also avers that the vacancy is causing a violation of legal rights of representation to the bankers/lenders, borrowers, guarantors, and other stakeholders.
The PIL also states that the Supreme Court, in the matter of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India has also taken cognizance of the vacancy at DRT/DRAT and requested jurisdictional High Courts to entertain the related matters.
The PIL prays for a direction to the Union Of India to appoint a full-time Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad. Further, during the pendency of the PIL, a direction has been sought to the UOI to direct the Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Ahmedabad to continue to preside over DRT-1 till a final and permanent appointment is made.
“The vacancy of the post of Presiding officer, DRT-I at Ahmedabad violates Article 14 of the Constitution as the litigants before the same territorial jurisdiction are being treated differently as the other bench DRT-II is functional and has Presiding Officer. The litigants cannot be treated differently even when they are identically placed. The fundamental rights Of the litigants that are lenders- banks/financial institutions and borrowers are violated. The right to justice and speedy justice are enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India,” the PIL states.
The bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R. Mehta also asked the ASG Devyang Vyas to make efforts for the appointment of a permanent member as soon as possible so that the presiding officer of DRT II is not burdened with work.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
