Supreme Court seeks assistance of Attorney General, Solicitor General in plea against transfer of jurisdiction of DRT Jabalpur to DRT Lucknow

The Supreme Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in a plea challenging the validity of the Central government’s notification transferring the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to DRT, Lucknow due to unavailability of a presiding officer at Jabalpur (State Bar Council of MP vs. UOI). .A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Central government and also directed that copies of the petition be served on the office of Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. "Issue notice. We direct the instructing counsel of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, to serve a copy of the petition in the learned Attorney General’s office. Let a copy of the petition be also served to the learned Solicitor General of India," the Court ordered. Pertinently, the Court during the hearing observed that the case will provide an opportunity for the Court to examine the reasons behind Central government not filling up vacancies in tribunals."We can very well see that the seats of Tribunals are attached to far-flung places on falling vacant. Then lawyers and litigants have to travel far-of to get Justice. Let's take this as a test case to find out why the Central Government is not filling up the posts in all these important Tribunals," the Bench remarked. The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council challenging a July 9 order of the Delhi High Court which had refused to pass any order on prayer for interim relief instead deferring the hearing by 6 weeks. A Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court had only issued notices in the plea and posted it after six weeks..The appeal against the same was filed in the Supreme Court citing urgency in the matter and in view of High Court's decision to defer the hearing on stay application.The plea before the top court stated that the government notification in question was contrary to Section 4 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks (RDDB Act) as the law obliges the Central government to vest powers of a State’s DRT only on a tribunal situated within the boundaries of the same State.Further, the petition stated that the DRT, Jabalpur has been lying vacant for the last one year..It was submitted that of late, DRTs have become increasingly important since many entities are shutting shop considering the downward trend of the economy. Absence of a regular full time Presiding Officer at DRT Jabalpur has led to steep rise in pendency, it was pointed out. “The transfer of case from the DRT of Jabalpur to the DRT of Lucknow is making the entire litigation exorbitant, unaffordable and beyond reach of an already crushed borrower/ guarantor whose bank accounts are treated as NPAs,” the plea filed through advocate Mrigank Prabhakar said..Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the jurisdiction conferred on the DRT, Lucknow was beyond the scope of the RDDB Act.He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in M/s Kerala Fashion Jewellery vs. UOI. In the said case, the decision to give additional charge of DRT Ernakulam to DRT Bangalore was quashed by the Kerala High Court..Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Siddharth R Gupta and Mrigank Prabhakar appeared for the petitioner.The matter has been listed for further hearing on 6 August..[Read Order]