MM Dhonchak moves Supreme Court, says early hearing order to impact disposal

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 16

A retired District and Sessions Judge currently serving as the presiding officer of the DRT-II, Chandigarh, MM Dhonchak, has filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging an order issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) on November 3 giving a slew of directions to him, the Union of India and the chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The plea comes after the boycott of the tribunal headed by Dhonchak by the advocates from June 7 to November 3.

In his SLP, Dhonchak, through counsel DK Sharma, argued that the HC observations in the order suggested dissatisfaction with his work and an omission on the part of the chairperson, DRAT, Delhi. He contended that the HC’s reliance on Section 17(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and its pressure on the DRAT, Delhi, were misplaced, asserting that the chairperson lacked the authority to withdraw work from a presiding officer.

Dhonchak also argued against the directive for early hearing of cases adjourned beyond six months, asserting that such a move would overwhelm the tribunal and adversely impact case disposal.

Dhonchak raised concerns about the HC orders, claiming a lack of consideration for the challenges faced by the presiding officer. He also blamed the HC for encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the DRAT, Delhi.

Additionally, Dhonchak pointed to a historical seniority dispute between him and a member of the HC Division Bench that issued the impugned order. He contended that the Judge should have recused herself due to the longstanding dispute.

Dhonchak said: “The categorical stand of the petitioner was that carrying the load of cases beyond the capacity was fraught with granting fake adjournments and making the tribunal absolutely a ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ tribunal which has been deprecated by all and sundry time and again and outrightly in the recent past by the Chief Justice of India.”

He added that it was a case of condemning a judicial officer for his daring to obey the Supreme Court at the peril of not only his career but even his limbs and life. “It is a classic case of facilitating the pot calling the kettle black without realising the fact that such facilitation would bring a doom to the system of administration of justice.”

Impact on judicial independence

The petitioner argued that judges must adhere to established legal procedures and should not be compelled to conform to the demands of advocates, especially during strikes or boycotts. Among other things, he added that “it is hard to live in Rome and fight with the Pope and in the present context, the unruly Bar has attained the status of Pope”.