The Delhi High Court recently chastised the Central Government for taking so long to appoint Presiding Officers to Debts Recovery Tribunals across the country and demanded a response from the Department within a week. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh of a Division Bench remarked as follows:"...the real problem being faced by the DRTs today is that they are headless and more or less defunct without qualified and competent incumbents."
The Bench was hearing a complaint about the Debts Recovery Tribunals' failure to resolve high-value recovery matters in a timely manner. The Court had asked the respondents to form a Committee to investigate the situation during one of the previous hearings in the case. As a result, an affidavit was submitted revealing the formation of a committee chaired by Justice Tarun Kumar Kaushal.
After reviewing the situation, the Committee made several suggestions, the first of which was that high-value recovery cases involving Rs.100 crores or more should be submitted electronically. The Committee indicated that this would simplify the process of electronic transmission of records from all such cases to the appropriate authorities and essentially cut down on delays in copy service, so preventing conflicts over copy service.
The affidavit also stated that high-value recovery cases should not be delayed for more than a week, according to the affidavit. Similarly, they advocated requesting reports on similar topics from the DRTs. The Court determined that if the Committee's recommendations were seriously followed, they would aid in the early resolution of high-value recovery cases to some extent. The Bench was informed, however, that three DRTs had been operating without Presiding Officers for more than six months.
Likewise, the Court noticed that despite the Supreme Court directing for lawyers with 10 years standing or more being qualified to offer their candidature for appointment to the DRT, the respondent had till date not implemented the said decision.
"It appears to us that either the respondents are completely unmindful of the seriousness of the problem, or despite being aware of the problem, are deliberately and consciously ensuring that DRTs do not function," the Court stated.
It was also pointed out that the Debt Collection Tribunals were established to speed up the recovery of debts owing to banks and financial institutions because the funds held by these institutions are public funds. As a result, the respondent's inability to make appointments to fill the vacancies in the DRTs is causing substantial harm to the greater public interest.
Comments