Union of India & Ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 617-618 of 2013
[Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 22808-22809 of 2010]
[Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 22808-22809 of 2010]
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 617-618 of 2013
[Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 22808-22809 of 2010]
[Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 22808-22809 of 2010]
Judges: D.K. Jain & H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 22, 2013
Head Note:
Debt Recovery
Debt Recovery Tribunal – Purpose of establishment. Delays in disposal of recovery suits by civil courts, necessitated the need for establishment of DRTs and DRATs for expeditious disposal of cases. (Para 6)
Debt Recovery Tribunal – Purpose of establishment. Delays in disposal of recovery suits by civil courts, necessitated the need for establishment of DRTs and DRATs for expeditious disposal of cases. (Para 6)
Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) – Functioning of – Inadequacy of office space – Both first DRT Bench and second DRT Bench functioning in same rented building – Vide communication dated 20.7.2007, UoI directing Second Bench to function at the premises acquired for it – Representation of Bar Association, requesting them to continue functioning at same premises, rejected – Writ filed, disposed of on an assurance from UoI that adequate space would be provided for functioning of both Benches at same place and for housing of DRTs – Direction given to complete construction within three years – On failure to get the order reviewed, UoI approached Apex court – Addl. Solicitor General as also amicus curiae appointed to identify problems of DRT and DRAT – Problems such as severe infrastructural constraints, acute shortage of staff and space, exorbitant rents, limitations on non-renewal/extension of leases, overload of cases etc. identified and measures suggested – Same accepted by UoI. Direction given for implementation. All High Courts asked to keep supervision on working of DRTs and DRATs.
Held:
At present, DRTs and DRATs suffer from severe infrastructural constraints. Most of the DRTs are being run from rented premises and face acute shortage of space, exorbitant rents, limitations on non-renewal/extension of leases etc. It has been brought to our notice that where the DRTs have been allotted space of about 5000 sq. ft., the actual requirement is not less than 7,500 sq. ft. Similarly, the learned amicus curiae brought to the fore several other issues plaguing the smooth functioning of the Tribunals, the most significant being: that there is a need to increase the number of DRATs in the country to reduce the workload of the existing DRATs; that many serving Recovery Officers lack a judicial background or are appointed on deputation from those very banks or financial institutions which are filing recovery cases in DRTs, thereby raising serious questions about their independence, impartiality and fairness; that the time taken in filling up vacancies for the posts of senior officials of DRTs and DRATs is extremely long; and that the presence of modern and technological systems of administration continues to be elusive in the administration of justice in as much as many DRTs and DRATs do not even have websites or computerized systems. (Para 9)
We are pleased to note the positive and forthcoming response of the UOI to the suggestions of the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae. (Para 10)
Article 227 of the Constitution stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. We expect that 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. We are confident that 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. (Para 11.1)
We issue the following directions:
i. All the aforementioned proposals and measures agreed upon by the UOI in response to the suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae and the Addl. Solicitor General shall be implemented expeditiously within a suitable time frame. In the event that the UOI or the concerned authority fails to comply with the aforesaid assurances, it will be open to the learned amicus curiae to bring the same to this Courts notice for appropriate directions.
ii. Further, we believe that the High Courts are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to oversee the functioning of the DRTs and DRATs. Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act leaves no scope for doubt in this behalf. It reads thus:
18. Bar of Jurisdiction.On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17. (Para 11)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [JT 2010 (7) SC 514] (Para 11.1.)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 18th September 2008 in CWP No. 11742 of 2007, and order dated 21st August 2009 in Review Application 161 of 2009, rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby certain directions relating to provision for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (for short the DRTs) at Chandigarh, have been issued. The circumstances that have led to the filing of these appeals are succinctly stated below.
3. A Bench of the DRT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India (for short the UOI), vide notification dated 24th March 2000, in a rented building. Subsequently, a second Bench of the DRT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises. However, both the Benches continued to function from the same premises where the earlier Bench was functioning. By a communication dated 20th July, 2007, the UOI directed that the second Bench would function from the premises acquired for it. Thereupon, the respondent Bar Association made a representation to the Presiding Officers of both the Benches, requesting them to inter alia, continue to function from the premises from where the first DRT was functioning. However, in light of the aforesaid communication issued by the UOI, the request of the Bar Association was not acceded to.
4. Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking directions to the UOI, to inter alia provide adequate accommodation for the functioning of both the DRTs; and to frame Rules for recruitment/appointment of the Presiding Officer & the Recovery Officers. In light of the assurance on behalf of the UOI that adequate space would be taken on lease for the smooth functioning of both the Benches at the same place, and that further, land was also being acquired for housing the DRTs, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the construction of the building shall be completed within three years from the date of its order. However, the High Court did not examine the other issues referred to above on the ground that they were unrelated to the inadequacy of office space needed by the DRTs.
5. Having failed to get the said order reviewed, the UOI is before us in these appeals. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the matter before us, it would be useful to have a birds eye view of the constitution of DRTs and their functioning.
6. Prior to the promulgation of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the RDDBFI Act), all banks and financial institutions were required to file their recovery cases in the form of suits before the civil courts, on the basis of their territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions. Due to delays in the disposal of such suits by civil courts on account of heavy dockets, the recovery of loans and enforcement of securities suffered. Thus, an urgent need was felt to work out a suitable mechanism through which, the dues of the banks and financial institutions could be realized expeditiously. This led to the establishment of DRTs and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (for short DRATs) under the RDDBFI Act for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
7. As per the information available, there are all in all 33 DRTs established in the entire country out of which Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Chandigarh and Ahmedabad have two or more DRTs each. However, there are only five DRATs, established in Allahabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, each covering multiple DRTs of a particular geographical zone. As a result, DRATs are overburdened and are also facing an acute shortage of infrastructure and staff.
8. Given the poor state of affairs as highlighted by the Bar Association, we were constrained to take cognizance and hence, vide order dated 15th November 2010, directed the learned Addl. Solicitor General to file an affidavit suggesting measures for improving the working of the said Tribunals. Subsequently, on 7th April 2011, this Court appointed Mr. Rajeev Mehra, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Consequently, having considered the views of all DRTs, DRATs as well as the Bar Associations, the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae have filed their responses, highlighting the core issues and respective suggestions to address the same. In light of the above, the UOI was directed to place on record their response on the issues so raised, in particular, on the criteria being adopted for appointment of the members, Recovery Officers etc. In pursuance thereof, the UOI has filed status reports, indicating the measures agreed upon by the Government to address the aforementioned issues. Before we proceed to list the same, it would be helpful to discuss the core issues in respect of which the suggestions have been made.
9. At present, DRTs and DRATs suffer from severe infrastructural constraints. Most of the DRTs are being run from rented premises and face acute shortage of space, exorbitant rents, limitations on non-renewal/extension of leases etc. It has been brought to our notice that where the DRTs have been allotted space of about 5000 sq. ft., the actual requirement is not less than 7,500 sq. ft. Similarly, the learned amicus curiae brought to the fore several other issues plaguing the smooth functioning of the Tribunals, the most significant being: that there is a need to increase the number of DRATs in the country to reduce the workload of the existing DRATs; that many serving Recovery Officers lack a judicial background or are appointed on deputation from those very banks or financial institutions which are filing recovery cases in DRTs, thereby raising serious questions about their independence, impartiality and fairness; that the time taken in filling up vacancies for the posts of senior officials of DRTs and DRATs is extremely long; and that the presence of modern and technological systems of administration continues to be elusive in the administration of justice in as much as many DRTs and DRATs do not even have websites or computerized systems.
Suggestions made by the learned Addl. Solicitor General and learned amicus curiae
S. Issue Suggestions of the Suggestions of the
No learned Addl. learned amicus
Solicitor General curiae
1. Premises & All DRTs and DRATs Concurring
Physical should be housed in
Infrastructure suitable buildings.
Pending construction
of these buildings,
the Tribunals should
be housed in rented
premises having an
area of at least
8000 sq.ft. where
suitable space for
records, etc. and
amenities for the
officers of the
court, staff,
litigants and
lawyers should be
provided.
2. Increase in A DRAT must be
Number of established in each
DRTs/DRATs state where there
— is a DRT or
multiple DRTs.
DRATs may be
established in the
city where the
concerned High
Court of a State is
located.
3. Appointment of Qualifications for Appointment of
Recovery Officers Recovery Officers Recovery Officers
should include at by way of
the very least, a deputation from
basic degree in law. Government
If possible, Departments/Ministr
judicial officers or ies, Banks and
advocates with five Financial
years standing at Institutions should
the Bar may be be discontinued.
appointed as Instead, the person
Recovery Officers. appointed must be a
person of a judicial
background, preferably a
judicial officer of
the rank below the
designation of
Addl. District and
Sessions Judge on
deputation, and
should be given the
same facilities and
perks he/she enjoys
in the parent cadre.
4. Vacancies and A select list of a. For posts other
Status of Senior candidates should be than Presiding
Officers of maintained to fill Officers and
DRTs/DRATs the vacancies. The Recovery Officers,
selections should be on-going process of
made within a fixed sourcing
time frame. staff/officers on
deputation should be
discontinued, and
permanent cadres should
be established.
b. The post of Presiding
Officers, Registrars and
Recovery Officers
should be filled up
from the state cadre of
Judicial Officers through
deputations and rotations
so that these posts do
not remain vacant.
c. Judicial officers must
be provided the same
facilities and perks as
they enjoy in their parent
cadres. Further,
residential
accommodation must
be necessarily
earmarked for
Presiding Officers.
5. Information DRTs and DRATs must Concurring
Technology and have a website.
Computerisation Possibility of
publication of
notices and auctions
on the website
should be explored,
keeping necessary
safeguards in mind.
The National Informatics
Centre should be called
upon to prepare
appropriate software
for computerization
of processes in the
DRTs, from filing to
disposal, so that the
time taken for disposal
is reduced.
10. We are pleased to note the positive and forthcoming response of the UOI to the suggestions of the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae. Having taken note of the urgent need to address the abject conditions prevailing in the Tribunals, the UOI, has agreed to:
i. Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis:
a. If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.
b. If space is not available in the Government building but sufficient space is available in public sector undertakings buildings, then the DRTs/DRATs may move to the same on a permanent lease/rental basis.
c. If (a) and (b) are not possible, then suitable land may be purchased for construction of a building, or a suitably constructed building may be purchased from public authorities. This may be completed in a phased manner. In the mean time, DRTs and DRATs may continue at their present locations or hire alternative suitable space as per norms.
d. Further, on the basis of a spot study conducted by the Department of Financial Services on 11th December 2011, the existing space authorization of 5000 sq. ft. for DRTs and 3600 sq. ft. for DRATs was examined. In light of the study and requirements of additional facilities, the same has been increased to 7200 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. respectively. In case more than one DRT is accommodated in one building, space would be saved for common facilities such as bar room, consultation chamber, reception, canteen, washrooms, etc. In such a case, the space requirements for the second and third DRT (if located in the same building) may be around 6000 sq. ft. and 5500 sq. ft. respectively.
e. Preference is to be given to buildings where parking facility is provided either within the building premises or in the vicinity.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. Extend the facility of General Pool of Accommodation of the type entitled to Group A officers upto April 2013 to the Presiding Officers. In the meantime, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Urban Development will examine all issues to finalise 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.
v. Implement the e-DRT Project to automate and improve DRT services by building IT systems as expeditiously as possible.
vi. 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, as suggested by the learned amicus curiae. However, the UOI 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.
vii. 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.
11. We are confident that the aforementioned measures proposed by the UOI, shall go a long way in improving the administration of justice in these Tribunals. We are in agreement with these proposals and hope that they will be implemented efficiently and expeditiously by the concerned authorities. Having said that, it is necessary that the exercise undertaken by this Court must reach its logical end sans any delays and glitches or any other hindrances in the implementation of these suggestions. To this effect, we issue the following directions:
i. All the aforementioned proposals and measures agreed upon by the UOI in response to the suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae and the Addl. Solicitor General shall be implemented expeditiously within a suitable time frame. In the event that the UOI or the concerned authority fails to comply with the aforesaid assurances, it will be open to the learned amicus curiae to bring the same to this Courts notice for appropriate directions.
ii. Further, we believe that the High Courts are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to oversee the functioning of the DRTs and DRATs. Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act leaves no scope for doubt in this behalf. It reads thus:
18. Bar of Jurisdiction.On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17.
11.1. Article 227 of the Constitution stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these courts and tribunals [Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [JT 2010 (7) SC 514 : 2010 (8) SCC 329]. Hence, in light of the above, we expect that 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. We are confident that 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.
12. Before parting, we place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered to us by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, the learned Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, the learned amicus curiae and Mr. Arjun Kapoor, Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant.
13. These appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
**************
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 18th September 2008 in CWP No. 11742 of 2007, and order dated 21st August 2009 in Review Application 161 of 2009, rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby certain directions relating to provision for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (for short the DRTs) at Chandigarh, have been issued. The circumstances that have led to the filing of these appeals are succinctly stated below.
3. A Bench of the DRT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India (for short the UOI), vide notification dated 24th March 2000, in a rented building. Subsequently, a second Bench of the DRT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises. However, both the Benches continued to function from the same premises where the earlier Bench was functioning. By a communication dated 20th July, 2007, the UOI directed that the second Bench would function from the premises acquired for it. Thereupon, the respondent Bar Association made a representation to the Presiding Officers of both the Benches, requesting them to inter alia, continue to function from the premises from where the first DRT was functioning. However, in light of the aforesaid communication issued by the UOI, the request of the Bar Association was not acceded to.
4. Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking directions to the UOI, to inter alia provide adequate accommodation for the functioning of both the DRTs; and to frame Rules for recruitment/appointment of the Presiding Officer & the Recovery Officers. In light of the assurance on behalf of the UOI that adequate space would be taken on lease for the smooth functioning of both the Benches at the same place, and that further, land was also being acquired for housing the DRTs, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the construction of the building shall be completed within three years from the date of its order. However, the High Court did not examine the other issues referred to above on the ground that they were unrelated to the inadequacy of office space needed by the DRTs.
5. Having failed to get the said order reviewed, the UOI is before us in these appeals. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the matter before us, it would be useful to have a birds eye view of the constitution of DRTs and their functioning.
6. Prior to the promulgation of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the RDDBFI Act), all banks and financial institutions were required to file their recovery cases in the form of suits before the civil courts, on the basis of their territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions. Due to delays in the disposal of such suits by civil courts on account of heavy dockets, the recovery of loans and enforcement of securities suffered. Thus, an urgent need was felt to work out a suitable mechanism through which, the dues of the banks and financial institutions could be realized expeditiously. This led to the establishment of DRTs and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (for short DRATs) under the RDDBFI Act for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
7. As per the information available, there are all in all 33 DRTs established in the entire country out of which Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Chandigarh and Ahmedabad have two or more DRTs each. However, there are only five DRATs, established in Allahabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, each covering multiple DRTs of a particular geographical zone. As a result, DRATs are overburdened and are also facing an acute shortage of infrastructure and staff.
8. Given the poor state of affairs as highlighted by the Bar Association, we were constrained to take cognizance and hence, vide order dated 15th November 2010, directed the learned Addl. Solicitor General to file an affidavit suggesting measures for improving the working of the said Tribunals. Subsequently, on 7th April 2011, this Court appointed Mr. Rajeev Mehra, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Consequently, having considered the views of all DRTs, DRATs as well as the Bar Associations, the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae have filed their responses, highlighting the core issues and respective suggestions to address the same. In light of the above, the UOI was directed to place on record their response on the issues so raised, in particular, on the criteria being adopted for appointment of the members, Recovery Officers etc. In pursuance thereof, the UOI has filed status reports, indicating the measures agreed upon by the Government to address the aforementioned issues. Before we proceed to list the same, it would be helpful to discuss the core issues in respect of which the suggestions have been made.
9. At present, DRTs and DRATs suffer from severe infrastructural constraints. Most of the DRTs are being run from rented premises and face acute shortage of space, exorbitant rents, limitations on non-renewal/extension of leases etc. It has been brought to our notice that where the DRTs have been allotted space of about 5000 sq. ft., the actual requirement is not less than 7,500 sq. ft. Similarly, the learned amicus curiae brought to the fore several other issues plaguing the smooth functioning of the Tribunals, the most significant being: that there is a need to increase the number of DRATs in the country to reduce the workload of the existing DRATs; that many serving Recovery Officers lack a judicial background or are appointed on deputation from those very banks or financial institutions which are filing recovery cases in DRTs, thereby raising serious questions about their independence, impartiality and fairness; that the time taken in filling up vacancies for the posts of senior officials of DRTs and DRATs is extremely long; and that the presence of modern and technological systems of administration continues to be elusive in the administration of justice in as much as many DRTs and DRATs do not even have websites or computerized systems.
Suggestions made by the learned Addl. Solicitor General and learned amicus curiae
S. Issue Suggestions of the Suggestions of the
No learned Addl. learned amicus
Solicitor General curiae
1. Premises & All DRTs and DRATs Concurring
Physical should be housed in
Infrastructure suitable buildings.
Pending construction
of these buildings,
the Tribunals should
be housed in rented
premises having an
area of at least
8000 sq.ft. where
suitable space for
records, etc. and
amenities for the
officers of the
court, staff,
litigants and
lawyers should be
provided.
2. Increase in A DRAT must be
Number of established in each
DRTs/DRATs state where there
— is a DRT or
multiple DRTs.
DRATs may be
established in the
city where the
concerned High
Court of a State is
located.
3. Appointment of Qualifications for Appointment of
Recovery Officers Recovery Officers Recovery Officers
should include at by way of
the very least, a deputation from
basic degree in law. Government
If possible, Departments/Ministr
judicial officers or ies, Banks and
advocates with five Financial
years standing at Institutions should
the Bar may be be discontinued.
appointed as Instead, the person
Recovery Officers. appointed must be a
person of a judicial
background, preferably a
judicial officer of
the rank below the
designation of
Addl. District and
Sessions Judge on
deputation, and
should be given the
same facilities and
perks he/she enjoys
in the parent cadre.
4. Vacancies and A select list of a. For posts other
Status of Senior candidates should be than Presiding
Officers of maintained to fill Officers and
DRTs/DRATs the vacancies. The Recovery Officers,
selections should be on-going process of
made within a fixed sourcing
time frame. staff/officers on
deputation should be
discontinued, and
permanent cadres should
be established.
b. The post of Presiding
Officers, Registrars and
Recovery Officers
should be filled up
from the state cadre of
Judicial Officers through
deputations and rotations
so that these posts do
not remain vacant.
c. Judicial officers must
be provided the same
facilities and perks as
they enjoy in their parent
cadres. Further,
residential
accommodation must
be necessarily
earmarked for
Presiding Officers.
5. Information DRTs and DRATs must Concurring
Technology and have a website.
Computerisation Possibility of
publication of
notices and auctions
on the website
should be explored,
keeping necessary
safeguards in mind.
The National Informatics
Centre should be called
upon to prepare
appropriate software
for computerization
of processes in the
DRTs, from filing to
disposal, so that the
time taken for disposal
is reduced.
10. We are pleased to note the positive and forthcoming response of the UOI to the suggestions of the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the learned amicus curiae. Having taken note of the urgent need to address the abject conditions prevailing in the Tribunals, the UOI, has agreed to:
i. Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis:
a. If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.
b. If space is not available in the Government building but sufficient space is available in public sector undertakings buildings, then the DRTs/DRATs may move to the same on a permanent lease/rental basis.
c. If (a) and (b) are not possible, then suitable land may be purchased for construction of a building, or a suitably constructed building may be purchased from public authorities. This may be completed in a phased manner. In the mean time, DRTs and DRATs may continue at their present locations or hire alternative suitable space as per norms.
d. Further, on the basis of a spot study conducted by the Department of Financial Services on 11th December 2011, the existing space authorization of 5000 sq. ft. for DRTs and 3600 sq. ft. for DRATs was examined. In light of the study and requirements of additional facilities, the same has been increased to 7200 sq. ft. and 4500 sq. ft. respectively. In case more than one DRT is accommodated in one building, space would be saved for common facilities such as bar room, consultation chamber, reception, canteen, washrooms, etc. In such a case, the space requirements for the second and third DRT (if located in the same building) may be around 6000 sq. ft. and 5500 sq. ft. respectively.
e. Preference is to be given to buildings where parking facility is provided either within the building premises or in the vicinity.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. Extend the facility of General Pool of Accommodation of the type entitled to Group A officers upto April 2013 to the Presiding Officers. In the meantime, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Urban Development will examine all issues to finalise 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.
v. Implement the e-DRT Project to automate and improve DRT services by building IT systems as expeditiously as possible.
vi. 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, as suggested by the learned amicus curiae. However, the UOI 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.
vii. 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.
11. We are confident that the aforementioned measures proposed by the UOI, shall go a long way in improving the administration of justice in these Tribunals. We are in agreement with these proposals and hope that they will be implemented efficiently and expeditiously by the concerned authorities. Having said that, it is necessary that the exercise undertaken by this Court must reach its logical end sans any delays and glitches or any other hindrances in the implementation of these suggestions. To this effect, we issue the following directions:
i. All the aforementioned proposals and measures agreed upon by the UOI in response to the suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae and the Addl. Solicitor General shall be implemented expeditiously within a suitable time frame. In the event that the UOI or the concerned authority fails to comply with the aforesaid assurances, it will be open to the learned amicus curiae to bring the same to this Courts notice for appropriate directions.
ii. Further, we believe that the High Courts are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to oversee the functioning of the DRTs and DRATs. Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act leaves no scope for doubt in this behalf. It reads thus:
18. Bar of Jurisdiction.On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17.
11.1. Article 227 of the Constitution stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these courts and tribunals [Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [JT 2010 (7) SC 514 : 2010 (8) SCC 329]. Hence, in light of the above, we expect that 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. We are confident that 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.
12. Before parting, we place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered to us by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, the learned Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, the learned amicus curiae and Mr. Arjun Kapoor, Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant.
13. These appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
**************
