RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 7. 12. 2005.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 30. 03. 2001, a certificate was given by the Recovery Officer against which an appeal has been filed by one of the party which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. In that appeal an application was filed by the petitioners for impleadment since the summons were not served upon the petitioners. The said application was decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal stating that the final order of impleading the party shall be given at the time of final hearing of the appeal. On 9. 11. 2005, the recovery officer passed an order ex parte against which an application for re-hearing the matter was filed on 14. 11. 2005 but the recovery officer refused to hear the application and the same was rejected. Aggrieving against the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 25. 11. 2005. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal refused to register the appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for hearing and point out certain objections regarding the court fees and the certified copy of the annexures. After hearing the arguments, the Registrar passed the order dated 7. 12. 2005 whereby refused to register the appeal. This refusal is challenged by the petitioners by way of this present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of refusal to register the appeal on the ground that appeal preferred against the interlocutory order was not maintainable without affixing adequate court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred a provisions of rule 7 (2) and submitted that these provisions are not applicable so far the fees payable under head 5 is not attracted because the recovery officer no where found any amount payable under orders in question. Thus, the Registrar has wrongly interpreted the law. The orders dated 9. 11. 2005 and 14. 11. 2005 being interlocutory in nature and as such the fees payable is Rs. 250/- only. Learned counsel for the petitioners also challenged the rules which were amended by Amending The Rules w. e. f. 21. 1. 2003 and that under section 20 of the Act, appeals are envisaged to the appellate tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. A meaningful reading especially clause 6 of section 20 and sub clause (1) envisages the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It did not speak of the filing of the appeal and dealing with the same by the Registrar. In any case, as per the principles of natural justice, when once an appeal is filed, it had to be dealt with as per the provisions of the Act. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 envisages the filing of the appeal before the Registrar of the Tribunal but rule 6 envisages the scrutiny of the appeal by the Registrar of the Tribunal. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 6 envisages the appeal to be filed against the orders of the Registrar which could be heard in chamber of the Presiding Officer. Thus, a right of hearing has practically been denied and the order passed by the Registrar is in violation of principles of natural justice as the final order can only be made by the Appellate Tribunal itself and not by the Registrar. ;