Om Educational Research And Management Society vs Punjab National Bank Through

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Notice. Mr. Nitin Misra, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

"1. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) as well notice dated 14.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent bank against petitioner society and to restrict respondent bank from taking over possession of properties details of which are mentioned in (Annexure P4 & P5) And

That respondent bank be directed to produce record of the case. And

That further in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent bank be directed to restructure the term loan sanctioned in favour of petitioner society. And

That respondent bank be directed to pay damages caused to petitioner society for non-disbursement of sanctioned amount as well for charging interest on amount never released in favour of the petitioner society.

Or in the alternate, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that the notices have been rightly issued by the respondent bank then this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent bank to allow petitioner society to repay the outstanding amount in 12 quarterly instalments."

It is more than settled that this Court has taken a consistent view that a writ is not maintainable in the matters of any adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). However, very peculiar situation has arisen in the instant case as the posts of Presiding Officers of DRT-I, II and III, Delhi and also DRT-I, II and III, Chandigarh are lying vacant and no additional charge of these DRTs has been entrusted/assigned by the Department of Financial Services. Even though initially the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur was nominated to deal with the extreme urgent cases of both the regions, i.e. Delhi and Chandigarh, however, vide a subsequent notification dated 05.10.2021, issued by the DRAT, the powers conferred upon the DRT, Jaipur to deal with the extreme urgent cases of DRT-I, Chandigarh, was withdrawn, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition, being virtually remediless.

The Principal Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration these peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated above, while disposing of CWP No.6587 of 2021, titled Swaroop Chand Dhiman and another Versus Punjab National Bank and others, observed as under:-

"7. In the normal course, this Court having already held that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy available to them to approach the DRT and they having already approached the Tribunal by filing appropriate application, the present writ petition could not have been entertained on the same subject matter, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the remedy said to be available to the petitioners before DRT, in fact, is not available in the absence of the posting of any Presiding Officer, not only in DRT-I, and other two DRTs at Chandigarh, particularly when the additional charge given to DRT Jaipur for entertaining the extremely urgent matters also stands withdrawn. Such remedy cannot be said to be efficacious in the present circumstances."

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal within a period of 15 days from today, which shall pass the appropriate orders on the application of the petitioners, in accordance with law. Respondents No.1 and 2, shall till then maintain status quo with regard to the property in question. However, this order shall come to an end on the expiry of 15 days i.e. on 8.11.2021. It would be for the DRAT to pass any further order thereafter in its discretion, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Principal Division Bench. Accordingly, while disposing of this petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT, Chandigarh within a period of 30 days from today, which shall pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for stay in accordance with law. However, in case the Tribunal is not constituted within the aforesaid period, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which, needless to say, shall pass orders as warranted under law. Till then, respondent shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in question.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti