MADAN, J. - (1.) JAIPUR DRT Bar Association (petitioner) through its Secretary Shri Rajendra Sharma Advocate espousing the cause of Advocates practising before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short "drt"), JAIPUR, has filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation, seeking writ, order or direction to- (1) quash the office order dated 18. 04. 2000 (Annex. 2) issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "drat"), Bombay, including the direction issued by the Chairperson of the DRAT to the Presiding Officer of the DRT JAIPUR; (2) restrain the Presiding Officer of the DRT JAIPUR for transferring the Original & Misc. Applications and the Execution Proceedings pending before the DRT JAIPUR to the DRT Chandigarh pursuant to the directions of the DRAT Bombay or office order dated 18. 04. 2000 (Annex. 2); and (3) direct the Presiding Officer of the DRT JAIPUR to dispose of the cases in accordance with law.
(2.) AN interim relief was also sought for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 18. 4. 2000 (ANnex. 2) of the Registrar, DRAT Bombay including directions issued by the Chairperson of the DRAT to the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur. Interim relief in similar nature as prayed for in prayer clause (2) (supra) in writ petition was also sought. At admission stage, after hearing Shri Paras Kuhad learned counsel for the petitioner Association, this Court admitted the writ petition and issued notices on the stay petition also and further directed that in the meanwhile the operation of the impugned order passed by the DRAT transferring cases from the DRT Jaipur shall remain stayed and the DRT Jaipur shall proceed and deal with the cases as it had been dealing with them before passing of the impugned order of transfer of cases. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs New Delhi respondent No. 1 in writ petition is represented by Shri Bhanwar Bagri learned Standing Counsel. No reply to the petition has been filed by him. Respondent No. 2 is the DRAT Bombay while respondent No. 3 is the DRT Jaipur being represented through its Registrars. During pendency of the petition, two applications seeking impleadment as party respondents to the writ petition were filed. One was moved on 25. 7. 2000 by Indian Banks Association, Mumbai for impleading it as respondent No. 4 & for vacating the stay order. Another application was moved on 3. 8. 2000 by Shri I. P. Singh (Advocate practising in the Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh) for impleading him as party or intervener to this petition. Shri I. P. Singh has also filed reply to the writ petition in advance alongwith his application for impleadment. At the request of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard finally at admission stage itself. Shri Paras Kuhad learned counsel for the petitioner Association contended that this petition is directed only against the transfer of pending cases at DRT Jaipur under the directions of the Chairperson of the DRAT Bombay purporting to exercise its powers u/s. 17a of the Ordinance No. 1 of 2000, whereas the Chairperson of the DRAT (respondent No. 2) has no power to pass a blanket order transferring all pending original and misc. applications including executing applications pending before the DRT Jaipur to the DRT Chandigarh recently constituted for the areas of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh (Union Territory ). Shri Kuhad contended that the powers vested in the Chairperson of the DRAT under Sec. 17a of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity "act") are restricted to transfer the cases from one Tribunal (DRT) to another only a) upon applications of a party, or b) on his own motion and that apart, c) such power of transfer can only be exercised after notice to the parties to the proceedings and after hearing them. According to Shri Kuhad, under the impugned order (Annex. 2) for transfer of cases from DRT Jaipur to Chandigarh, neither any person has moved the DRAT Bombay for such transfer of cases nor any notice has ever been issued to the parties of the cases being transferred to Chandigarh nor anybody has been heard before issuing directions to DRT Jaipur for transfer of cases pending thereat to newly constituted DRT at Chandigarh.
(3.) SHRI Kuhad also contended that once the DRAT at Delhi has been constituted, the DRAT at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to issue directions for transfer of pending cases from DRT Jaipur to Chandigarh in view of sub sec. (2) of Sec. 17a of the Act which contemplates that only the Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Tribunals (DRT) has such power or authority to consider applications for trans- fer or may pass an order on his own motion. SHRI Kuhad then contended that Sec. 17 of the Act does not confer any power on the Tribunals to transfer cases, inasmuch as it contemplates that a Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed date, jurisdic- tion, power and authority to entertain and decide applications from the Banks and Fin- ancial Institutions for recovery of debts due to such Banks and Institutions. Therefore, according to SHRI Kuhad, the Tribunal (DRT) constituted at Chandigarh can consider only such applications filed before it from the appointed date which evidently means and implies that it has no power to consider to recall by transfer any case pending before the Tribunal prior to establishment of new Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh. Shri Kuhad further contended that in view of crystal position as it emerges for Sec. 3,8,17 and 19 read with 33 of the Act, cases pending before the DRT at Jaipur cannot be transferred in the manner in which the cases have been transferred pursuant to the directions issued by the DRAT Mumbai or as per impugned order dated 18. 4. 2000. Lastly Shri Kuhad contended that the directions issued by the Chairperson of DRAT Mumbai to the DRT Jaipur for transfer of pending cases to the DRT Chandigarh is arbitrary, without application of mind and jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice. Shri Kuhad in support of his contentions cited decisions in S. V. Cooperative Bank vs. Kasargode Panduranga (1), Ramchandra vs. Govind (2), Ajanta Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes (3), Commissioner of Income Tax Banglore vs. Smt. R. Sharadamma (4), P. Narayana Rao vs. IT Commissioner ;