PIL Moved In Gujarat High Court Seeking Appointment Of Presiding Officer In DRT-I, Ahmedabad

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in terms of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

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.

It has been further averred 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 submits that the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Ahmedabad has two benches and there have 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 has been filed seeking the interim extension of additional charge and also directions for an appointment.

Petitioner has cited orders of Delhi High Court in 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.

Lastly, 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.

Case title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India