2013 (2) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Directions relating to provision for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (the DRTs) at Chandigarh & to frame Rules for recruitment/ appointment of the Presiding Officer & the Recovery Officers - A Bench of the DRT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India (UOI) vide notification dated 24-3-2000 in a rented building & subsequently, a second Bench of the DRT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises - Two Benches of DRT, functioning from same premises - Whether Union of India was to be directed to provide adequate space for smooth functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunals? - Held that - Having taken note of the urgent need to address the abject conditions prevailing in the Tribunals, the UOI, has agreed to provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs. Consider the feasibility of establishing more DRTs/DRATs and redefining the jurisdiction of some DRTs on the basis of data showing pendency of cases and existing workload of all the DRTs and DRATs. Fill all anticipated vacancies for the posts of senior officers, as and when they arise, with candidates who have already been selected according to the stipulated rules. Extend the facility of General Pool of Accommodation of the type entitled to Group A officers up to April 2013 to the Presiding Officers. In the meantime, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Urban Development will examine all issues to finalize modalities for either buying or construction of flats/houses for use of the members of the Tribunals. Further, in case this proposal does not materialize, then the possibility of hiring accommodation shall be considered at the appropriate stage. Implement the e-DRT project to automate and improve DRT services by building IT systems as expeditiously as possible. Carry out the recruitment of Recovery Officers by promotion, failing which, by deputation, in accordance with the eligibility criteria as defined in the recruitment rules of each DRT. Keeping in mind the profile of the post of a Recovery Officer, it may not be possible to appoint judicial officers of a rank below that of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. However, the Union of India shall give preference to only those candidates who either have legal experience or hold a degree in law. Further, with respect to improving the selection procedure of Recovery Officers, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), provided for in the recruitment rules, shall be expanded to include the Presiding Officer of any DRT as a member of the DPC to take part in the selection of the Recovery Officers. At the same time, the level of representation of the Reserve Bank of India in the DPC will also be raised from the rank of Deputy Legal Advisor to Joint Legal Advisor, RBI. Hold regular training programmes for Recovery Officers/ Assistant Registrars/Registrars to give them minimum working knowledge of the procedures followed in DRTs, the provisions of the RDDBFI Act, the SARFAESI Act, the Rules made thereunder, and the provisions of Schedules II and III of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the High Courts shall keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRAT, which fall within their respective jurisdictions. The High Courts shall ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals as through the timely and appropriate superintendence of the High Courts, the Tribunals shall adhere to the rigour of appropriate standards indispensable to the fair and efficient administration of justice. Thus it is directed that all the aforementioned proposals and measures agreed upon by the Union of India in response to the suggestions made for working of Tribunals shall be implemented expeditiously within a suitable time frame.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Provision of adequate space and infrastructure for Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs).
2. Increase in the number of DRTs and DRATs.
3. Appointment and qualifications of Recovery Officers.
4. Filling vacancies and status of senior officers in DRTs and DRATs.
5. Implementation of Information Technology and computerization in DRTs and DRATs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provision of Adequate Space and Infrastructure:
The appeals arose from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's directions to provide adequate space for DRTs at Chandigarh. Initially, both DRT benches functioned from the same rented premises. The Union of India (UOI) directed the second bench to move to newly acquired premises, which led to the Bar Association's representation to continue functioning from the existing premises. The High Court directed the UOI to ensure adequate space and complete construction within three years. The Supreme Court highlighted that most DRTs operate from rented premises with inadequate space, leading to severe infrastructural constraints. Both the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae suggested housing DRTs and DRATs in suitable buildings with at least 8000 sq. ft. of area. The UOI agreed to provide adequate infrastructure, including space from government buildings, public sector undertakings' buildings, or purchasing suitable land/buildings.

2. Increase in the Number of DRTs and DRATs:
The Supreme Court noted the overburdened state of existing DRATs, covering multiple DRTs. The learned amicus curiae suggested establishing a DRAT in each state with DRTs, preferably in cities where the concerned High Court is located. The UOI considered the feasibility of establishing more DRTs/DRATs and redefining their jurisdiction based on case pendency and workload data.

3. Appointment and Qualifications of Recovery Officers:
The Supreme Court identified issues with the independence and impartiality of Recovery Officers, many of whom lacked judicial backgrounds or were appointed on deputation from banks/financial institutions. The learned Addl. Solicitor General suggested appointing Recovery Officers with at least a basic degree in law, preferably judicial officers or advocates with five years of standing. The learned amicus curiae recommended discontinuing deputation appointments and appointing judicial officers of a rank below Additional District and Sessions Judge. The UOI agreed to give preference to candidates with legal experience or law degrees and proposed expanding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to include a Presiding Officer of any DRT.

4. Filling Vacancies and Status of Senior Officers in DRTs and DRATs:
The Supreme Court emphasized the long time taken to fill senior officer vacancies in DRTs and DRATs. The learned Addl. Solicitor General suggested maintaining a select list of candidates for timely selections. The learned amicus curiae recommended establishing permanent cadres for posts other than Presiding Officers and Recovery Officers, filling posts through deputations and rotations, and providing judicial officers with equivalent facilities and perks as in their parent cadres. The UOI agreed to fill vacancies with selected candidates, extend General Pool of Accommodation facilities to Presiding Officers, and examine modalities for buying or constructing flats/houses for Tribunal members.

5. Implementation of Information Technology and Computerization:
The Supreme Court noted the lack of modern technological systems in DRTs and DRATs. The learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae concurred on the need for DRTs and DRATs to have websites, explore online publication of notices and auctions, and develop appropriate software for process computerization. The UOI agreed to implement the "e-DRT Project" to automate and improve DRT services.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court appreciated the positive response from the UOI and directed the implementation of the proposed measures expeditiously. The Court emphasized the High Courts' role in overseeing the functioning of DRTs and DRATs under Article 227 of the Constitution to ensure smooth, efficient, and transparent operations. The appeals were disposed of with directions for timely implementation of the agreed measures.