[DRAT vacancy] Will ask Finance Secretary to appear: Bombay High Court cautions Central govt

The Bombay High Court on Thursday warned the Central government that it will summon the Secretary from the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to apprise it regarding the status of appointments of chairperson to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) lying vacant [Bank of Bahrain v. Union of India & Ors.].Disgruntled by the lack of seriousness by the authorities with respect to the High Court orders in this regard, a Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik decided to summon the Secretary MoF on February 21, to point out the timeline by when the appointments will be made."This is the level of seriousness shown by Ministry of Finance, most important Ministry after Defence and Home. This is now testing our patience. We cannot allow law to become a casualty, justice to becomes a casualty," CJ Datta remarked.However Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh requested the Court to grant him one last opportunity to get instructions in order to submit a positive response. Accepting this contention, the Court adjourned the hearing of the matter to February 21, 2022. "If we are not told of any positive outcome by then, we would be constrained to call upon the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and responsible officer in Department of Personnel Training for facilitating appointment of chairpersons of DRAT," the Bench stated in the order..The Court was hearing two writ petitions seeking a direction to be issued to the Central government to appoint a chairperson for the DRAT in Mumbai. The Court had earlier passed suo motu directions to aid litigants who were left without appellate remedy, due to vacancies in the DRAT rendering it non-functional.In the previous hearing, the Bench had called for a note indicating the road map for filling up the vacancy that was placed before them today by the ASG..The Court noted on Thursday that the status report signed by AK Dogra, Director, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, failed to set out any roadmap for appointments. "Bare perusal of the report does not reveal any road map, we (the Court) are left to wonder whether the Director (FS) understood what is meant by road map in light of the order dated Feb 4," the Bench recorded in the order.The Bench also noted in its order that after December 30, there has been no positive development in respect of this 'important' matter that the High Court was seized of.