'11 DRTs Have No Presiding Officers': Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On PIL To Fill Up Vacancies

The Supreme Court today (November 18) sought a response from the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation seeking filling of pending appointments of Presiding Officers in the Debt Recovery Tribunals. 

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that so far appointments in 11 DRTs remain to be completed. The following order was passed : 

"11 Debt Recovery Tribunals remain unmanned which is creating issues. In view of the grant of additional charges and also the complications, notice be served including datsi, counter affidavits be filed in 5 weeks. Rejoinder to be filed within 3 weeks of the response."

As per the plea, out of 39 Debts Recovery Tribunals in the Country, nearly one third- 11 DRTs are without Presiding Officers as of September 30. These include Tribunals in Jaipur, Chennai(2), Mumbai (2), Aurangabad, Ahmedabad, Coimbatore, Ranchi, Bengaluru, Lucknow. In Chandigarh, out of two 2 Tribunals, one remains non-functional. 

The petition also highlighted that while a circular dated September 5, 2023 indicated to fill the pending vacancies, no proactive steps have been taken to process the appointments further. 

It also pointed out how the DRTs in the neighbouring states were being given additional charge of the pending workload of the above 11 DRTs, which only adds to the delays in dispensing justice.

" Instead of filling up the vacancies, the Respondents resort to giving additional charge of the vacant DRT's to a DRT situated in a neighbouring state. For instance, the Presiding Officer, DRT Patna has been given additional charge of the Ranchi DRT (22.07.2024) and Lucknow DRT (17.09.2024). The charge of DRT Jaipur has now been with DRT Delhi for almost the one year. This stop gap arrangement is no respite; rather causes practical difficulties to the concerned lawyers practising in the particular DRT's and further decelerates the disposal of the other DRT as well. And, in view of the additional charge given to such DRT's, only urgent matters are taken up and normal matters are not considered." 

The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner : 

a. Call for the relevant records relating to selection and appointment to the post of Presiding Officer in the office of Presiding Officer of the DRT and ascertain the extent of seriousness with which action to fill up the vacancies of the Presiding officer of the DRT

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable Writ directing the Respondent to plunge into the action of filling of the post of Presiding Officers in the DRTs which are practically non-functional as of date due to existence of vacancies and continue to fill them up on time in the future as well.

c. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other suitable writ directing that in case any vacancy arises in any state, then the respondents be directed to issue orders ensuring that the powers of the DRT are vested in any other Tribunal in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

d. Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.

The petition has been filed with the assistance of AOR Sudarshan Rajan

Case Details : NISCHAY CHAUDHARY Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 740/2024 

Click Here To Read/Download Order