2023 (1) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment of full time Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad - HELD THAT - Right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon ble Apex Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (10) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT . 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. To put it differently, 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. This Court adjourned this matter to enable the respondent to take such steps. Though this matter has seen two subsequent dates i.e. 17.6.2022 and 20.6.2022, till date, the assurance given to this Court has not crystallized by way of any such steps having been taken or order having been issued - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking a direction to appoint a Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad.
2. Violation of legal rights due to vacancy in the post of Presiding Officer.
3. Delay in filling the vacancy affecting the right to speedy justice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner sought a writ to direct the respondent to appoint a full-time Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad. The petitioner, an advocate with expertise in various financial and legal domains, contended that the vacancy in the said position was detrimental to the rights of various stakeholders involved in the tribunal's proceedings.

Issue 2: The petitioner highlighted the impact of the vacancy on the rights of litigants, bankers, lenders, borrowers, guarantors, and other stakeholders. The petitioner emphasized their public-spirited nature, involvement in significant legal matters, and the need for a Presiding Officer to ensure the effective functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I in Ahmedabad.

Issue 3: The court acknowledged the importance of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The delay in appointing a Presiding Officer was deemed to be a violation of litigants' rights under Article 14, as it resulted in differential treatment of cases pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I compared to those in Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. Despite assurances from the respondent regarding the appointment process, no concrete steps were taken. Consequently, the court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conclude the appointment process within two months and instructed the placement of the Presiding Officer of DRT-II with additional charge of DRT-I until the appointment is finalized.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the pressing issue of the vacancy in the position of Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery and the need to uphold the legal rights of all parties involved in the tribunal's proceedings.