Rajkumar And Others vs Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd And Others

Gurpal Singh Ahluwali, J

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

"(A) Directing the respondents to maintain status quo and / or no coercive action with regard to the properties in. question, till the decision on the securitization application filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur;

(B) Quash the orders dated 26.03.2026 Passed by ADM, Indore in Case No0361/B-121/2025-26 and notice 07.042026 passed by Tahsildar Sanwer, Indore, till the decision on the securitization application by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur;

(C) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be granted to the petitioner along with costs."

It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur is not functioning on account of vacancy of Presiding Officer; therefore, the petitioners have no efficacious forum for redressal of their grievances.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Department of Financial Services by notification/order dated 04/06/2026 has given the additional charge of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to the Presiding Officer of the DRT No.2, Ahmedabad.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

The Department of Financial Services, Union of India has issued the following order on 04.06.2026:-

"F. NO. 7/1/2026-

DRT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,

Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

Dated: June 4, 2026

ORDER

To,

The Registrar,

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad / Jabalpur

SUBJECT: TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL CHARGE ARRANGEMENT FOR THE POST OF PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR - REGARDING.

In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), the Central Government hereby approves the assignment of the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad.

This temporary look-after arrangement is necessitated due to the administrative vacancy at DRT Jabalpur and shall be effective immediately. The Presiding Officer, DRT-1 Ahmedabad shall discharge all judicial and administrative functions pertaining to DRT Jabalpur, in addition to their existing regular duties, for a period of six (6) months, or until the joining of a regular appointee, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

To ensure smooth compliance with statutory mandates and uninterrupted institutional access for litigants across Madhya Pradesh, the following operational regulations are strictly ordered:

1 . Filing and Registries: All new Securitisation Applications (SAs), Original Applications (OAs), and Interlocutory Applications (IAs) arising from the territorial jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh shall continue to be filed, logged, and scrutinized at the primary registry office of DRT Jabalpur via the e-DRT portal (cis.drt.gov.in).

2 . Conduct of Hearings: Adjudication of matters pending or newly instituted before DRT Jabalpur shall be conducted by the In-charge Presiding Officer through virtual or hybrid modes (via designated Video Conferencing platforms). Daily cause lists along with security credentials for the digital courtrooms shall be uploaded on the e-DRT network.

3 . Urgent Matters: In instances of extreme statutory emergency, such as an imminent asset auction or forced physical possession under the SARFAESI Act, the Registrar of DRT Jabalpur shall expeditiously coordinate with the staff of the In-charge Presiding Officer at Ahmedabad to ensure same-day virtual listing or scheduling.

The designated Presiding Officer shall not be entitled to any additional financial remuneration or special allowance for discharging these additional statutory responsibilities.

Yours faithfully,

(S. K. Mishra)

Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel: 011-2374XXXX

Email: drt-dfs@nic.in

Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:

The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad.

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai / Allahabad.

The Under Secretary (DRT), Department of Financial Services, New Delhi.

The President, DRT Bar Association, Ahmedabad / Jabalpur.

NIC Cell, Department of Financial Services, for uploading on the official portal.

Guard File."

Therefore, it is clear that the grievance of petitioners that there is nobody in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to take up the matter, has already been redressed by the Union of India and the additional charge of the said post has been given to Presiding Officer, DRT No.2 Ahmedabad. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out to entertain this writ petition.

At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that till the petitioners approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, the possession of the petitioners may be protected.

Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that possession of property has already been taken much prior to filing of the writ petition.

Heard the counsel for parties.

Without entering into the controversy as to whether the possession has been taken or not, it is suffice to mention that if the High Court has refused to entertain the writ petition and has relegated the parties to approach the different forum, then the writ petition cannot be entertained only for giving the interim relief.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors reported in 2010 (9) SCC 437 has held as under:-

It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1305; State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685; State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak", AIR 1966 SC 1441 and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238).

Under these circumstances, the prayer for interim relief cannot be granted.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and hereby dismissed.