Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the second respondent-Register, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow to send the file of petitioner relating to S.A. No.559 of 2013; Saurabh Gupta Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in pursuance to Notification No.SO454(E)[F.No.1/3/2016-DRT] dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-2) conferring the jurisdiction of District Shahjahanpur to DRT Allahabad as requested in the application/ letter dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure-3) sent by the petitioner through counsel."
(3.) This writ petition was heard on 11.10.2017 and 24.10.2017. On 15.11.2017 learned counsels for the parties were heard at length and the following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Sanjay Maurya holding brief of Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. Pursuant to the order dated 11.10.2017, Sri Mehrotra has stated that instructions have been received from the Registrar, Debts Recovery Trubinal, Lucknow. He submits that pursuant to an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by a Division Bench in Misc. Bench No.4330 of 2017 (Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association through V.C. Rajiv Mishra vs. Union of India through Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi) the Under Secretary has issued a letter dated 18.09.2017 advising the Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Lucknow to comply with the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. Another letter dated 10.10.2017 has been issued by the aforesaid Under-Secretary requesting the D.R.T. Lucknow to deal with all similar cases as mentioned in para-1(2) of the Department of Financial Services, letter of even number dated 18.09.2017. Copies of these letters dated 18.09.2017 and 27.09.2017 have not been placed before this court. From perusal of the order dated 03.08.2017 in the case of Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association through V.C. Rajiv Mishra , it appears that the whole concern was with respect to cases relating to eight districts of Uttar Pradesh transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal established at Dehradun (Uttarakhand) and in view thereof, the Central Government was advised to reconsider it. It was observed that allocation of districts of Uttar Pradesh which were adjoining to the State of Uttarkhand does not appear to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Central Government was advised to reconsider this aspect and modify the notification impugned. It was further observed by the Division Bench that it would be appropriate to advise the Central Government to reconsider its decision for allocation of districts to the Debt Recovery Tribunal particularly established at Dehradun before transmitting the records to the respective Tribunals. Thus from the order dated 03.08.2017, it transpires that the Division Bench not stayed the operation of the Notification No.454(E)[F.NO.1/3/2016-DRT] DATED 15-2-2017 issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Recovery Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench has not interfered with the functioning of the Tribunal at Allahabad with respect to the jurisdiction assigned to it by the aforesaid Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, which is a statutory instrument issued in legislative exercise of powers. No direction has been issued by the Division Bench to defer the Notification. The said notification is stated to have been issued after due approval of the Cabinet. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason for the respondents to take the stand that in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench order, the pending cases falling under jurisdiction of D.R.T. Allahabad, could not be transferred so far from the D.R.T. Lucknow. That apart, litigants were not before the Lucknow Bench in the aforesaid case rather the writ petition was filed by Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association. Before this Court, the present writ petition has been filed by a litigant who wants that his case be heard at the D.R.T. Allahabad which has the jurisdiction to hear the case as per Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, it appears that the respondents are deliberately not giving effect to the notification under Section 3 of the Act with respect to the D.R.T. Allahabad, which is backed by a cabinet decision and has been issued in legislative exercise of powers. The matter is serious. However on the request of learned counsel for the respondents, the matter is adjourned for today to enable him to seek further instructions. Put up on 17.11.2017 ";