A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has ruled that the Centre cannot entrust the charge of a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to any other DRT outside the State and that the only option available to it is to appoint a presiding officer of any other tribunal within the State to discharge the DRT's functions. The verdict was issued while the Bench was hearing an appeal filed by a jewellery firm from Thrissur and others against a single judge's decision upholding a Notification dated 5 July 2021 entrusting the charge of presiding officer of the Ernakulam Debts Recovery Tribunal-II to the presiding officer of the Bangalore DRT. The Bench, in quashing the Notification dated 5 July 2021 observed that the Single Judge's view was incorrect, "because, if and when the office of the tribunal under the Act, 1993 (Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act) falls vacant, the only course open to the Centre is only to authorise the presiding officer of any other tribunal constituted under any other law within the jurisdictional State, carry out the responsibilities of a DRT's presiding officer in a way that is more useful and accessible to the litigant public.”
The petitioners argued that the order transferring the presiding officer of the Ernakulam DRT to the presiding officer of the Bangalore DRT violated sub-section (2)(a) and (b) of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which was amended in 2016. In reality, the change to the Act removed the clause that allowed the Centre to do so. The petitioners asked the Centre to commit the extra responsibility of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, to any presiding officer or judicial member of any other tribunal till a regular incumbent joins the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.
Comments