Centre Cannot Give Charge of a Debt Recovery Tribunal of One State to Presiding Officer of Another State: Kerala High Court

The appeal was filed by Kerala Fashion Jewellery, challenging the order issued by a Single Bench of this Court that upheld a notification issued by the Centre entrusting the charge of Ernakulam DRT with the Presiding Officer of the DRT in Bangalore.

Adv. P. Chandrasekhar while representing the appellants argued that the Single Bench had misinterpreted the amended Section 4(2) of RDB Act. The provision only empowered the Central Government to authorize the Presiding officer of any other Tribunal established under the law to discharge the function of the Presiding Officer of DRT in case of a vacancy.

However, this was misconstrued to mean that the Central Government was vested with powers to authorise the DRT constituted in another State to hold the additional charge of the Tribunal at Ernakulam, on the ground that the term 'Tribunal' in the Act referred to a DRT, and not any other Tribunal.

The Court observed that a plain reading of the said provision clearly reveals that the appellants were right in their interpretation. While appreciating the appeal, it held thus:

"When the office of the Tribunal falls vacant, the course open to the Central Government is only to authorise the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal constituted under any other law within the jurisdictional State, to discharge the functions of the Presiding Officer of a DRT, which would be more beneficial and accessible to the litigant public. That being so, we are of the definite opinion that the stand taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, notification to the extend entrusting the additional charge to the Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Bangalore, to function as the Presiding Officer, of DRT-II, Ernakulam has to be quashed."

However, the Centre was given the liberty to issue a fresh notification in accordance with the law at the earliest.