Gujarat High Court issues notice in plea for appointment of Presiding Officer in DRT Ahmedabad

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition seeking directions to the Central government for the appointment of a Presiding Officer (PO) for Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I, Ahmedabad [Nipun Praveen Singhvi v Union of India]..- Petitioner sought appointment of Presiding Officer in DRT-I, Ahmedabad. Alternatively, sought charge to be given to PO in DRT-II;- Petitioner contended that vacancy in the tribunal was violative of constitutional rights and hampered access to justice;- The very same day, Central government published notification handing over charge of DRT-I to PO in DRT-II..On the very same day that a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R Mehta issued notice in the plea, the Central government issued a notification assigning additional charge of DRT-I to the PO in DRT-II..The petition was filed on the ground that the vacancy was causing a serious violation of the rights of litigants whose cases were pending before the Tribunal, and their access to justice was compromised.“The vacancy in DRT-I has led to violation of legal rights of representation to the bankers/lenders, borrowers, guarantors, and other stake holders,” the petition reads.It was brought to the High Court’s attention that the vacancy had led to overburdening of writ courts and thus, stood against the prurpose for which tribunals were created..It was submitted that the charge was previously given to the PO of DRT-II from August 10, 2021 till February 9, 2022. However, DRT-I had no PO since January 1, since when matters were being adjourned in line with a letter issued by the Ministry of Finance stating that the additional charge given to the PO of DRT-II was limited till December 31, 2021..Therefore, it was the petitioner’s assertion that the vacancy was violative of litigants’ rights under Article 14 of the Constitution since DRT-II was functional and other litigants before the same territorial jurisdiction were being treated differently..Advocates Avinash Poddar, Vishal J Dave and Hiral U Mehta appeared for the petitioner..[Read High Court Order].[Read Central Government Notification]