The Supreme Court noted that such an interim order of "not to pass any adverse orders in any of the cases" by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal cannot be passed and is unsustainable.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar were hearing on Thursday an SLP filed by the Judicial Member of the DRT against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and observed that such an interim order of "not to pass any adverse orders in any of the cases" by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal cannot be passed and is unsustainable.
Facts:
High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, has restrained the Judicial Member of the Tribunal from passing any adverse orders in any of the cases (OAs or SAs) pending before him of which he is the Presiding Officer.
Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner-Bar Association has fairly conceded that let the concerned Judicial Member of the Tribunal proceed further with the hearing of the cases and decide the same on merits and the members of the Bar shall cooperate. However, he has requested that the self-respect of the members of the Bar Association shall also be maintained. He has stated at the Bar that therefore, the Bar has no objection if the impugned order is modified to the extent allowing/ permitting the Judicial Member of the Tribunal to proceed further with the hearing of the cases and to decide the same by him on merits.
The Supreme Court noted that such an interim order of "not to pass any adverse orders in any of the cases" by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal cannot be passed and is unsustainable.
The Supreme Court bench modified the impugned order passed by the High Court and permitted the petitioner/Judicial Member of the Tribunal to proceed further with the hearing of the matters before him and decide the same on merits.
The SC Bench expected the Judicial Member, as well as the Bar, should always try to maintain a cordial atmosphere/relationship as both are part of the justice delivery system and both are the two wheels of the chariot of justice. Therefore, it is expected that both sides may respect each other.
The Supreme Court impressed upon the petitioner to see that there should not be unnecessary confrontation and he may decide the cases in accordance with the law on its own merits.
The Supreme Court further cleared "that does not mean that we have commented upon the conduct on the part of the advocates and/or the petitioner-Judicial Member of the Tribunal."
The case has been listed for 12 December 2022.
Σχόλια