- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- 'Right To Speedy Justice Enshrined...
'Right To Speedy Justice Enshrined Under Article 21': Gujarat High Court Directs Expeditious Appointment Of Presiding Officer At DRT Ahmedabad
PRIYANKA PREET
29 Jun 2022 12:00 PM IST
Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Gujarat High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocate enrolled in...
Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Gujarat High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocate enrolled in the Gujarat Bar Council and practising before various courts.
The Petitioner indicated that DRT-I and DRT-II exercised jurisdiction over State of Gujarat. Even though charge of DRT-II was given to a Presiding Officer, the post of Presiding Officer of DRT-I remained vacant, causing difficulty to litigants and the public.
Initially, the Ministry of Finance had issued a notification giving the additional charge of DRT-I to Presiding Officer of DRT-II. The same was extended up till March 31, 22. However, subsequently, no further notification was issued by the Respondent extending the in-charge arrangement and consequently, the post has remained vacant since April 1. By virtue of the same, matters pertaining to DRT-I are being adjourned without any proceedings taking place.
At the outset, the High Court observed that the right to speedy justice was enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and non-adherence to the same would impinge upon the rights of citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the litigants are differently treated though placed on the same pedestal or being on par.
"Litigants whose matters are before DRT-II would be able to get the relief at the hands of DRT-II, whereas litigants who are similarly placed and seeking reliefs by filing the petition, which is pending before DRT-I, are not able to get the relief namely, their applications or petitions are getting adjourned from time to time for want of Presiding Officer and thereby depriving them of their legitimate right to speedy justice," the Bench said.
Significantly, ASG Devang Vyas had assured the Court that the appointment of Presiding Officer was underway and steps would be taken to issue office orders for making in-charge arrangement. . However, the Bench found that the matter had witnessed two dates and yet the appointment had not crystallised.
Keeping in view the lack of 'concrete or positive answer', the High Court directed that the Officer be appointed expeditiously and that appropriate notification be issued for the appointment of DRT-II as in-charge of DRT-I until then.
Case No.: C/WPPIL/41/2022
Case Title: NIPUN PRAVEEN SINGHVI v/s UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251
