Punjab and Haryana HC direction restraining DRT judicial member from passing adverse order unsustainable: SC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 6

Just about a fortnight after presiding officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II M.M. Dhonchak challenged Punjab and Haryana High Court’s direction restraining him from passing adverse orders, the Supreme Court has made it clear that such an order was unsustainable.

The apex Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed the high court, vide the impugned order, had restrained the tribunal’s judicial member from passing any adverse orders in any of the cases pending before him on a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association. “Such an interim order of not to pass any adverse orders in any of the cases by the judicial member of the tribunal cannot be passed and is unsustainable,” the Bench asserted.

Appearing before the Bench on the Bar association’s behalf, a senior advocate “fairly conceded” let the judicial member proceed with the hearing of the cases and decide the matters on merits. The Bar members, in turn, would cooperate.

He, at the same time, requested that the members’ self-respect should also be maintained. The Bar had no objection if the impugned order was modified to the extent of allowing/permitting the judicial member to proceed further with the hearing of the cases and to decide the same on merits.

Taking a note of the submissions, the Bench modified the impugned order and permitted the petitioner- judicial member to proceed further with the hearing of the matters before him and decide the same on merits.

The Bench added it went without saying that the judicial member as well as the Bar “should always try to maintain cordial atmosphere/relationship as both are part of the justice delivery system and both are the two wheels of the chariot of justice”. As such, it was expected that both sides might respect each other.

“We impress upon the petitioner also to see that there is no unnecessary confrontation and he may decide the cases in accordance with law on its own merits. That does not mean that we have commented upon the conduct on the part of the advocates and/or the petitioner-judicial member of the tribunal”, the Bench added.