M/s Atharva Infrastructure And Ors vs Corporation Bank

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Heard on admission.

This writ petition is directed complaining that though the matter was listed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur on 20-2-2018, but the

application for staying the auction was listed on 21-2-2018 and on that day, the presiding officer was not available, therefore, the matter was adjourned

for 27-2-2018, as the presiding officer proceeded on leave for seven days (from 21-2-2018 to 27-2-2018). Meanwhile, auction of the property has

taken place on 21-2-2018 and sale is likely to be confirmed and if sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, the petitioners will suffer irreparable

loss and it will be a case of failure of justice, as the application will become infructuous not being heard and thus, there will be failure of justice.

This Court has directed Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India, to seek instructions as to why the alternative arrangement has not

been made. On instructions, he submits that the presiding officer is on leave for seven days from 21-2-2018 to 27- 2-2018 and normally, if the leave

period of the presiding officer (DRT) is more than 15 days, then only alternative arrangement is made by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Since the petitioners' substantive application for staying the sale of auction is pending consideration and the presiding officer proceeded on leave for

one week and auction sale is likely to be confirmed, in the mean while, it is directed that pursuant auction, sale certificate be not issued till the

petitioners' application for stay of auction is taken-up by the DRT. The said application shall be taken up by the DRT on the first available date the

presiding officer is available. The respondent Bank is at liberty to make application for modification of the order, if any.

In view of the fact-situation of the instant case which has been noticed herein-above, I fervently hope and trust that the Central Government or the

appropriate authority will consider the non-availability of presiding officer (DRT) and even if the presiding officer is on leave for shortest period of

time, they will take proper steps to make appropriate alternative arrangement to hear the urgent cases pending or to be filed during the period of leave

of the presiding officer so that the consumers of justice may not suffer and may not be required to run from pillar to post. It is also expected from the

presiding officer of the DRT to inform the same to the Central Government or the appropriate authority enabling them to make alternative

arrangement for even shortest period of their absence, well in advance.

A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, for information and further needful action.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).