- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 19-12-2012 passed by the D.R.A.T., Delhi in Appeal No. 158/2011 whereby the order dated 21-1-2011 passed by the D.R.T., Jaipur in Appeal No. 34/2004 was upheld.
(2.) At the threshold, I have examined the maintainability of the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, for that purpose, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it emerges from the facts that in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 617/618 of 2013, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22808-22809 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 22-1-2013 in the case of Union of India v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, 2013 AIR(SCW) 927) in which, while considering Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercise jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these Courts and tribunals.
(3.) While observing the above, certain directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the High Courts shall keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRAT which fall within their respective jurisdiction and ensure smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals. The adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid order reads as under:- "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 Court's 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." 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 exercise jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these Courts and tribunals (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 AIR(SCW) 6387)). 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.";