Gujarat High Court Disposes PIL Seeking Appointment Of Presiding Officer In DRT Ahmedabad In View Of Centre's Notification
The Gujarat High Court today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in view of Centre's notification giving additional charge of DRT-I, Ahmedabad to the presiding officer of DRT-II till March 31, 2022, or till the permanent appointment of a member is made.At the request of...
The Gujarat High Court today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in view of Centre's notification giving additional charge of DRT-I, Ahmedabad to the presiding officer of DRT-II till March 31, 2022, or till the permanent appointment of a member is made.
At the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, 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 isn't burdened with work.
In response to this, the Union Government further assured the bench that all efforts shall be taken to appoint a permanent member. In view of this, the petition was disposed of.
The PIL before the Court
The plea had been moved by Advocate Nipun Singhvi through advocates Vishal J Dave, Dr. Avinash Poddar, and Hiral U Mehta averring that the vacancy is causing a violation of legal rights of representation to the bankers/lenders, borrowers, guarantors, and other stakeholders.
It had been further averred in the PIL that the vacancy is seriously impinging on the rights of litigating citizens whose cases are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal — I, at Ahmedabad, and their right to have access to justice is being compromised.
"The vacancy of the post of Presiding officer, DRT-I at Ahmedabad violates Article 14 of the Constitution as the litigants before 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 is 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 PIL submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Ahmedabad has two benches and there has been only one Presiding Officer in Bench-II and that till 31.12.2021 the work of DRT-I was also taken care of by the PO of DRT-II, however, thereafter, no new appointment has been done and the additional charge has also not been extended
Against this backdrop, the PIL had been filed seeking the interim extension of additional charge and also directions for an appointment.
Petitioner had cited orders of Delhi High Court in a similar matter of Edelweiss ARC Ltd Vs The Secretary, Department Of Financial Services & Ors. (WP(C) 3668/2021), wherein similar order was passed for continuing with the existing Presiding Officer.
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.
Case title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 23