Bombay High Court
Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 2016
Tilak 1/24 WP-7923-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7923 OF 2016
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR
ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI .. PETITIONER
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Nitin Thakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.M.P.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.Umesh Shetty, Mr.Sanjayu Anavhawane, Mr.Mangesh
Patel, Ms.Medha Rane, Puneet, Raju Shinde, Selvi, Ameta,
Anoop Khaitan, Ms.Sabeena i/b Mr.Sanjay Anabhawane for
petitioner.
Mr.Anil Singh, ASG with Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala i/b
Pranil Sonawane for respondent no.1.
Mr.Sandesh Patil for applicant in CA No.2288 of 2016.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ.
& M.S. SONAK, J.
RESERVED ON: 3rd OCTOBER, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th DECEMBER, 2016
JUDGMEMT (PER DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ).:-
1 The present petition is filed seeking invocation of
the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by issuing directions
to the respondent authorities to consider and approve the
Tilak 2/24 WP-7923-16
available premises in South Mumbai for the functioning and
shifting of DRT No.3, Mumbai which are suitable not only to
the litigant public, but also Advocates practicing in Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(DRAT). They placed reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT) Bar Association and Anr, (2013)2 SCC 574.
They further sought a direction restraining the respondents
from transferring DRT No.3, Mumbai or any part of it to Vashi,
Navi Mumbai. Along with this, they have also sought for
appointment of a permanent Chairperson of DRAT, Mumbai to
preside over the DRAT at Mumbai.
2 In brief, the facts that led to the filing of the petition
are narrated as under:-
The petitioner is an association consisting of
Advocates mainly practicing in the DRT and DRAT at Mumbai.
They function in the name and style of "DRT Bar Association".
When the petitioner learnt about the proposed action of
respondent nos.1 and 2 for transfer of DRT No.3 from Mumbai
to Navi Mumbai, they approached the respondents contending
Tilak 3/24 WP-7923-16
that the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the
various orders passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ
Petition Stamp No.1532 of 2015, but in spite of it, they
persisted with the proposal of shifting DRT No.3 from Mumbai
to Navi Mumbai. They narrated other details in the Writ
Petition as how the matters pertaining to districts of Palghar,
Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg were transferred to Pune
DRT, and the matters pertaining to district Nasik to Mumbai
DRT No.2 in order to ease out over-burden of work of DRT
No.3, Mumbai.
3 At that juncture, a Writ Petition (Stamp) No.1532 of
2015 came to be filed complaining non-availability of
permanent DRAT at Mumbai, wherein the difficulties and
hardship faced by litigants and Advocates appearing before DRT
and DRAT, Mumbai were clearly indicated and apprised of the
said situation. The Division Bench proceeded to pass an order
on 6th July 2015 directing the Central Government to take
appropriate steps, and consider whether it is possible to appoint
one more Chairperson in each DRAT so as to reduce the backlog
of pendency. It was further directed that the Government shall
Tilak 4/24 WP-7923-16
also implement the directions of the Apex Court, as stated
above, in the case of Union of India Vs. Debt Recovery
Tribunal Bar Association and Anr (supra). So far as the issue
in question, the contention of the petitioner was also pointed
out wherein there is clear opposition from the petitioner to the
suggestion of the respondent authorities to transfer DRT No.3
to any other place outside South Mumbai on the ground that
the attempt of the respondent authorities was without taking
into consideration the opinion of the stake holders, in other
words, without consulting the petitioner association who could
have brought on record the difficulties of the petitioner and the
litigants.
4 During the pendency of the above proceedings, the
petitioner learnt that the second respondent without even
consulting and considering the suggestion, addressed a
communication to the first respondent seeking approval for
hiring space in MTNL building at Navi Mumbai area on leave
and licence basis for establishment of DRT No.3, Mumbai.
Accordingly, permission was granted by the first respondent.
On learning the same, the petitioner expressed their grievances
Tilak 5/24 WP-7923-16
about the proposed transfer of DRT No.3, Mumbai to Vashi and
came up with a proposal that there are other spaces available at
South Mumbai at a very reasonable rent compared to the rent
payable at Navi Mumbai. In spite of such proposal, respondent
nos.1 and 2, without any justification, were attempting transfer
of the matters of DRT No.3 to Vashi, but the petitioner pointed
out several places next to the premises where the present DRT
and DRAT are functioning. In spite of availability of spaces at
much cheaper than the premises at Navi Mumbai, and in spite
of the area at New Hind House, Ballard Pier available is more
than the space available at Vashi, respondent nos.1 and 2 bent
upon implementing the decision to transfer DRT No.3 matters
to Vashi, Navi Mumbai without application of mind at the
whims and fancies of some officials. In response to this, the
first respondent placed on record certain facts in brief as under.
5 According to the first respondent, in Writ Petition
(Stamp) No.1532 of 2015, the main issue was regarding the
appointment of Chairperson of DRAT, Mumbai. In the said case,
the petitioner association, as intervenor, raised the controversy
of shifting of DRT No.3 proceedings. The matter was discussed
Tilak 6/24 WP-7923-16
from time to time, and ultimately, respondent no.1 - Union of
India - brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court the decision
to shift DRT No.3 to Vashi. In spite of it, no specific direction
whatsoever came to be made by the Division Bench regarding
the decision where DRT No.3 should be located. On the other
hand, when the Bench inquired with the Advocates for the
respondents as to when DRT No.3 would be shifted to Vashi,
they made it clear that it would be finalized within a period of
six weeks.
6 It is brought on record the exercise made by
respondent so far as the issue in question. In terms of
directions of the Hon'ble Court to locate suitable building and
places for housing DRTs and DRAT at Mumbai, which again
depends upon available option, after physical inspection and
after consulting the concerned officials, Registrars of DRAT, DRT
No.1, DRT No.2 and DRT No.3 of Mumbai, a conscious decision
was taken to house DRAT and DRT Nos.1 and 2 in the present
premises known as "Scindia House", N.M. Road, Ballard Estate
and shift DRT No.3 to MTNL Building, Vashi, Sector No.30,
near Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai. According to the
Tilak 7/24 WP-7923-16
respondents, MTNL premises at Navi Mumbai is a new building
having spacious and ample parking facilities in the compound
of the building which is also very close to bus depot and railway
station. Respondent no.2 - Registrar in charge of DRT No.3
has also placed on record in WP no.7923/16 several factual
details in order to appreciate the stand of the parties in the
above matter.
As per this affidavit, it is stated that the issue raised
in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.1532/15 was mainly with regard to
appointment of Chairperson of DRAT Mumbai. However,
incidentally, the controversy with regard to shifting of DRT No.3
was also discussed from time to time, wherein it was brought to
the notice of the High Court that the Union of India had
decided to shift DRT No.3 to Vashi. In spite of such information
on record, there was no positive direction by the Court on this
issue, and rather left the issue for the Government to decide
where the DRT should be located. On the other hand, when
Advocates for the respondents were inquired by the Bench
when DRT No.3 would be shifted, it was submitted that it
would be finalized within a period of six weeks. Under these
Tilak 8/24 WP-7923-16
circumstances, on 29th July 2016, the Bench stayed shifting of
DRT No.3 to Vashi until further orders. Under those
circumstances, DRT No.3 could not be shifted to Vashi.
8 Respondent no.2 submits that DRT No.3 is facing
severe space shortage as presently it is housed in 3000 sq.ft.
area which is approximately 50% of the required space. This
shortage of space was persistently brought to the notice of the
concerned Ministry. All available spaces in DRT No.3 Mumbai
are utilized for keeping the records only. The records are kept
on the floor in Sections, offices of rooms occupied by Registrars
and Recovery Officers. Such records are kept even in the
chamber of Presiding Officer and anti-chamber and court hall.
There is serious leakage problem from the ceiling of the
building. During monsoon, on account of these problems, the
Court proceedings were conducted from the chamber of
Hon'ble Presiding Officer from 6th June 2016 which is evident
from the photographs annexed as Exhibit-1.
9 When suggestions came up with regard to
alternative premises, the officials of Mumbai DRT visited many
Tilak 9/24 WP-7923-16
of the places and identified few sites, taking into consideration
the requirement of such spaces closer to railway station, bus
station, apart from having regard to parking facility and good
condition of the building. One Mr. Anandrao V. Patil, Director
of Department of Financial Services came to inspect the
buildings along with the Registrars of DRAT and DRT Nos.1, 2
and 3. They have annexed the comparative chart of the sites
visited by the officials with reference to area and rate per sq.ft.
According to them, many of the sites visited, were not found
suitable due to geographical location, inadequate structure like
parking facility and required space vis-a-vis high rental cost.
10 Ultimately, near Vashi Railway station, the building
in question was identified as the most suitable one for DRT
No.3 from all angles. It has suitable geographical accessibility
and parking facility. The requirement of DRT no.3 is 7200 sq ft.
and the area available is 8750 carpet area. The premises is
very close to railway station and there is ample parking facility
in MTNL building. The combined space available at Mumbai in
the present premises for housing DRAT and DRT Nos.1, 2 and 3
is 23,200 sq.ft. The total area available in Scindia House is
Tilak 10/24 WP-7923-16
17,851 sq.ft. There is shortage of 6000 sq.ft. The space
required for DRAT, DRT No.1 and 2 put together is about
17,700 sq.ft and the available space is 17,851 sq.ft. Therefore,
with the approval of the Presiding Officer, a recommendation
was sent for shifting DRT no.3 to the MTNL Building at Vashi,
Navi Mumbai which was approved by the concerned
authorities. A lease deed came to be executed on 29 th June
2016 and possession of the property was also handed over on
7th July 2016 to DRT.
11 In response to oral directions in Writ Petition
(Stamp) No. 1532/15, tentative date of shifting and being
functional of DRT No.3 at Vashi, the shifting procedure
commenced. From 11th June 2016, shifting of records is
commenced, it would be completed by 18th July 2016 and the
proposal to make it functional was from 20 th July 2016. The
site visits were conducted jointly by Bar members and DRT
officials, and a note to that effect was also submitted to the
concerned Ministry and marked as Exhibit-A. The building at
New Hind House was very old and there was heavy leakage in
the walls, the ceilings apart from cracks in the beams, ceilings
Tilak 11/24 WP-7923-16
and the walls. According to them, since it is a heritage building,
possibility of additions, alterations and modifications is not
there. Therefore, even constructing Court rooms, additional
wash rooms for Presiding Officers have to be made with
permission from the appropriate authorities. Entire building
consists of one lift which has capacity to carry four persons at a
time. There is no parking facility and the vehicles have to be
parked on the road. Therefore, this was not chosen. Similar
were the conditions with other premises.
12 With the above material on record, we have to see
whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for
in the above petition. One has to appreciate why the Recovery
of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act came into
existence, and what was the purpose of making such law. The
Supreme Court of India had an occasion to deal with such an
enactment where, apparently, several directions were given to
Union of India as to what was the intention with which the said
enactment was introduced and how the functioning of the DRT
and DRAT has to be considered. While appreciating the
functioning of DRTs and DRATs, their Lordships opined that in
Tilak 12/24 WP-7923-16
order to make them functional, there has to be adequate
infrastructure for Tribunals, Members/Chairpersons, staff etc.
This was in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Debt
Recovery Tribunal Bar Association & Anr (supra), the
relevant paragraphs are paragraph nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.1.1,
9.1.2, 9.1.4, 9.1.5, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7. which read as
under:-
In order to appreciate the issue involved in the
matter before us, it would be useful to have a bird's eye
view of the constitution of DRTs and their functioning.
Prior to the promulgation of the Recovery of Debts Due
to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for
short "the RDDBFI Act"), all banks and financial
institutions were required to file their recovery cases in
the form of suits before the civil courts, on the basis of
their territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions. Due to
delays in the disposal of such suits by civil courts on
account of heavy dockets, the recovery of loans and
enforcement of securities suffered. Thus, an urgent need
was felt to work out a suitable mechanism through
which, the dues of the banks and financial institutions
could be realized expeditiously. This led to the
establishment of DRTs and the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunals (for short "DRATs") under the
RDDBFI Act for expeditious adjudication and recovery
of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
7 At present, DRTs and DRATs suffer from severe
infrastructural constraints. Most of the DRTs are being
run from rented premises and face acute shortage of
space, exorbitant rents, limitations on non-
Tilak 13/24 WP-7923-16
renewal/extension of leases etc. It has been brought to
our notice that where the DRTs have been allotted space
of about 5000 sq. ft., the actual requirement is not less
than 7,500 sq. ft. Similarly, the learned amicus curiae
brought to the fore several other issues plaguing the
smooth functioning of the Tribunals, the most
significant being: that there is a need to increase the
number of DRATs in the country to reduce the workload
of the existing DRATs; that many serving Recovery
Officers lack a judicial background or are appointed on
deputation from those very banks or financial
institutions which are filing recovery cases in DRTs,
thereby raising serious questions about their
independence, impartiality and fairness; that the time
taken in filling up vacancies for the posts of senior
officials of DRTs and DRATs is extremely long; and that
the presence of modern and technological systems of
administration continues to be elusive in the
administration of justice in as much as many DRTs and
DRATs do not even have websites or computerized
systems.
8 Suggestions made by the learned Additional
Solicitor General and the learned Amicus Curiae
Sl. Issue Suggestions of the learned Suggestions of the
No. Additional Solicitor General learned amicus curiae
1 Premises and All DRTs and DRATs should Concurring
physical be housed in suitable
infrastructure buildings. Pending
construction of these buildings,
the Tribunals should be housed
in rented premises having an
area of at least 800 sq.ft where
suitable space for records, etc.
and amenities for the officers
of the court, staff, litigants and
lawyers should be provided.
Tilak 14/24 WP-7923-16
2 Increase in ------ A DRAT must be
number of established in each State
DRTs/DRATs where there is a DRT or
multiple DRTs. DRATs
may be established in the
city where the High Court
concerned of a State is
located.
3 Appointment Qualifications for Recovery Appointment of Recovery
of Recovery Officers should include at the Officers by way of
Officers very least, a basic degree in deputation from the
law. If possible, judicial government
officers or advocates with five departments/Ministries,
years' standing at the Bar may banks and financial
be appointed as Recovery institutions should be
Officers. discontinued. Instead, the
person appointed must be
ig a person of a judicial
background, preferably a
judicial officer of the rank
below the designation of
the Additional District and
Sessions Judge on
deputation, and should be
given the same facilities
and perks he/she enjoys in
the parent cadre
Tilak 15/24 WP-7923-16
4 Vacancies A select list of candidates (a) For posts other than
and status of should be maintained to fill the Presiding Officers and
senior vacancies. The selections Recovery Officers,
officers of should be made within a fixed ongoing process of
DRTs/ time-frame. sourcing staff/officers on
DRATs deputation should be
discontinued, and
permanent cadres should
be established.
(b) The post of Presiding
Officers, Registrars and
Recovery Officers should
be filled up from the State
cadre of judicial officers
through deputations and
rotations so that these
ig posts do not remain
vacant.
(c) Judicial officers
must be provided the same
facilities and perks as they
enjoy in their parent
cadres. Further, residential
accommodation must be
necessarily earmarked for
Presiding Officers.
5 Information (a) DRTs and DRATs must Concurring
technology have a website. Possibility of
and publication of notices and
compuratiz- auctions on the website should
ation be explored, keeping necessary
safeguards in mind.
(b) The National Informatics
Centre should be called upon
to preapre appropriate software
for computerization of
processes in DRTs, from filing
to disposal, so that the time
taken for disposal is reduced.
9 We are pleased to note the positive and
forthcoming response of the UOI to the suggestions
of the learned Addl. Solicitor General and the
Tilak 16/24 WP-7923-16
learned amicus curiae. Having taken note of the
urgent need to address the abject conditions
prevailing in the Tribunals, the UOI, has agreed to:
9.1 Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs
on the following basis:
9.1.1 If sufficient space as per requirement
is available in the Government building, then
space from the concerned department will be
allotted on a permanent basis.
9.1.2 If space is not available in the
Government building but sufficient space is
available in public sector undertakings' buildings,
then the DRTs/DRATs may move to the same on
a permanent lease/rental basis.
9.1.3 If (a) and (b) are not possible, then
suitable land may be purchased for construction
of a building, or a suitably constructed building
may be purchased from public authorities. This
may be completed in a phased manner. In the
mean time, DRTs and DRATs may continue at
their present locations or hire alternative
suitable space as per norms.
9.1.4 Further, on the basis of a spot study
conducted by the Department of Financial
Services on 11th December 2011, the existing
space authorization of 5000 sq. ft. for DRTs and
3600 sq. ft. for DRATs was examined. In light of
the study and requirements of additional
facilities, the same has been increased to 7200 sq.
ft. and 4500 sq. ft. respectively. In case more than
one DRT is accommodated in one building, space
would be saved for common facilities such as bar
room, consultation chamber, reception, canteen,
washrooms, etc. In such a case, the space
requirements for the second and third DRT (if
Tilak 17/24 WP-7923-16
located in the same building) may be around 6000
sq. ft. and 5500 sq. ft. respectively.
9.1.5 Preference is to be given to buildings
where parking facility is provided either within
the building premises or in the vicinity.
9.2 Consider the feasibility of establishing
more DRTs/DRATs and redefining the jurisdiction of
some DRTs on the basis of data showing pendency of
cases and existing workload of all the DRTs and
DRATs.
9.3 Fill all anticipated vacancies for the
posts of senior officers, as and when they arise, with
candidates who have already been selected according
to the stipulated rules.
9.4 Extend the facility of General Pool of
Accommodation of the type entitled to Group A
officers upto April 2013 to the Presiding Officers. In
the meantime, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry
of Urban Development will examine all issues to
finalise modalities for either buying or construction
of flats/houses for use of the members of the
Tribunals. Further, in case this proposal does not
materialize, then the possibility of hiring
accommodation shall be considered at the
appropriate stage.
9.5 Implement the "e-DRT Project" to automate
and improve DRT services by building IT systems as
expeditiously as possible.
9.6 Carry out the recruitment of Recovery Officers
by promotion, failing which, by deputation, in
accordance with the eligibility criteria as defined in
the recruitment rules of each DRT. Keeping in mind
the profile of the post of a Recovery Officer, it may
not be possible to appoint judicial officers of a rank
Tilak 18/24 WP-7923-16
below that of an Additional District and Sessions
Judge, as suggested by the learned amicus curiae.
However, the UOI shall give preference to only those
candidates who either have legal experience or hold
a degree in law. Further, with respect to improving
the selection procedure of Recovery Officers, the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC),
provided for in the recruitment rules, shall be
expanded to include the Presiding Officer of any
DRT as a member of the DPC to take part in the
selection of the Recovery Officers. At the same time,
the level of representation of the Reserve Bank of
India in the DPC will also be raised from the rank of
Deputy Legal Advisor to Joint Legal Advisor, RBI.
9.7 Hold regular training programmes for
Recovery Officers/Assistant Registrars/ Registrars to
give them minimum working knowledge of the
procedures followed in DRTs, the provisions of the
RDDBFI Act, the SARFAESI Act, the Rules made
thereunder, and the provisions of Schedules II and
III of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
13 As already explained by respondent no.2 i.e.
Registrar, DRT No.3, they have annexed a table indicating how
they have analyzed the material on record, vis-a-vis, the
requirement and the available facilities like space, parking
space, lifts, passages, etc. The sites visited by Shri Anandrao
Patil, Director for proposed location of DRT No.3, Mumbai has
indicated the details of location, accessibility, carpet area in
sq.ft, floor where space is available, passage, stairs etc,
number of lifts, number of toilets, parking inside and parking
Tilak 19/24 WP-7923-16
outside with regard to the site at Bombay Port Trust, Nirman
Bhavan, Dockyard Road(East), MTNL Building, Cuffe Parade,
Telephone Exchange, G.D.Somani Marg, Mumbai, MTNL
Building, Colaba, Telephone Exchange, G.D. Somani Marg, Air
India building, Podium building, Nariman Point, which read as
under :
SITES VISITED BY Shri Anand Patil, Director for proposed relocation of DRT, Mumbai
Location Mumbai Mumbai MTNL Bldg., MTNL Air India Vashi Tele Fountain II Cumballa
Port Trust, Port Cuffe Parade Bldg, Bldg, Exch Tel Exch Hill Tel
Nariman Trust, Tele Exch Colaba Podium Bldg, Bldg, Exch Bldg,
Peddar
Bhavan, Bhandar Bldg, G.D. Tele Exch Bldg, Sector MG Road,
Road,
Dockyard Bhavan, Somani Bldg, G.D. Nariman 30A, Next Mumbai-1 Mumbai
Road East Dockyard Marg, Somani Point to Vashi
Road East Mumbai Marg, Railway
400005 Mumbai Station
400005
Accessibility 15 mts 15 mts Churchgate 3 kms from 20 1 minute Beside High Not near
from from 3.5 kms (15 Churchgate minutes walking Court. Next High Court
& not near
Dockyard Dockyard minutes by and CST. by bus distance to VSNL
any Rly
Road Road bus) and Actual from CST/ from Bldg Station
Station Station CST travel takes Churchgat Vashi
(around 4.5 45 minutes e. Actual Train and
kms) 20 due to travel Bus
minutes by traffic takes 40 Station
Bus from minutes
CST. Actual due to
travel takes traffic
45 minutes
due to
traffic
Tilak 20/24 WP-7923-16
Carpet Area 9449 sq.ft. 15068 24620 sq.ft. 21000 17049.69 26265 12000 sq.ft. 7500 sq.ft.
in square Built-up sq.ft. (12310 sq.ft. sq.ft. built- sq.ft. Built-up in each in each
floor
feet Built-up in each up (7000 Built-up area floor. Total
floor) sq.ft. in area. (8755 24000 sq.ft.
each floor) (5570 sq.ft. in
sq.ft. in each floor
Ground approx.
Floor and in each
11479.69 floor)
sq.ft. in
First
Floor)
Floor Firsrt 3rd Floor 5th & 6th 1st, 2nd & Ground 1st, 2nd 5th & 6th 6th & 9th
Floor 3rd Floor and First and 3rd Floor Floor
Floor Floor
Passage Wide Wide Normal Wide Wide Very wide Wide
Space/ Passage passage passage/ passage passage passage passage
Stairs Stairs area
No of Lifts 2 Lifts 2 Lifts
ig4 Lifts 4 Lifts 4 Lifts 2 Lifts 6 in each flr
+ 1 goods
lift
No of Toilets 2 Toilets 4 Toilets 2 Toilets 4 Toilets 4 Toilets 4 Toilets 2+2 in each
flr. 6th flr
has addl 2
toilets
Parking Available Available Limited to 6 Limited to Limited to Ample No parking
4 5 parking for public.
¾ cars for
PO can be
managed
with
permission
Outside Available Available Not Not Parking at Public Not
Parking available available roadside parking available
subject to available
availabilit just
y outside
the
building
14 Apart from the existing space, and how it is utilized,
is depicted in the photographs from page 110 to 115. In the
affidavit in reply, they have also stated how New Hind House is
Tilak 21/24 WP-7923-16
not suitable (where NTC is housed) and why the authorities
concerned did not find it suitable. For DRT Nos.1, 2, 3 and
DRAT, total space available is 23,200 sq.ft. At present, Scindia
House has an available space of 17,851 sq.ft only. Therefore,
the space required for the DRAT, DRT Nos. 1 and 2 put together
is about 17,700 sq.ft. Therefore, the space in the existing
building is enough to house only the DRAT, DRT Nos.1 and 2.
So far as DRT No.3 is concerned, the notification of the Union
of India clearly indicates which are the places which are
included within the purview of DRT No.3. They have also
placed on record the said notification dated 26th September
2016 that DRT No.3 covers matters arising from Thane, Palghar
and Nasik Districts in the State of Maharashtra. They have also
placed on record details in respect of running of local trains of
Western Railway, Central Railway and Harbour lines. The map
clearly indicates that within five minutes one can reach railway
station and bus stand from the new location of DRT No.3.
Therefore, it is well connected to road as well as railway
transportation. There is enough parking space available inside
the premises, and even there is parking facility outside the
premises.
Tilak 22/24 WP-7923-16
15 The stake holders who attend the matters at DRT
No.3 include not only the lawyers, but the parties to the
litigation. There has to be proper space and infrastructure to be
provided for staff as well as records, etc. We expect some
breathing space for proper discharge of duties, so far as the
staff and other officials of the establishment are concerned.
There has to be decent and basic facilities congenial for the
Officers, Member and Chairperson of the DRT. If the space
available at the existing building has shortage of about 7,000
and odd sq.ft, it would be nothing but expecting the DRT to
work in a suffocated and restricted area which is contrary to the
undertaking given by Union of India to the Apex Court so far as
amenities to be provided as indicated in the case referred to
above. That apart, whether the petitioner association as an
applicant can question the suitability or proposal to shift the
place for functioning of one of the Debt Recovery Tribunals on
the ground of convenience? As already stated above, the
infrastructure and other facilities like accessibility have to be in
the light of the undertaking of Union of India rather than the
inconvenience or hardship espoused in the Writ Petition. In a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
Tilak 23/24 WP-7923-16
whether this Court can venture into fact finding exercise to
analyze which place is more convenient or suitable for proper
functioning of a Tribunal under the Central Act. Such exercise
is the total responsibility of the authorities concerned i.e.
Government of India and it is more of a policy decision. There
are no set of legal parameters to review such action of the
executive exercising authority in the guise of policy makers. It
is more of a policy decision of the concerned authorities to set
up such establishment. Apart from the obligation of the
authority to set up such an establishment, they have come out
with reasonable explanation why the present location was
preferred and chosen when compared to other sites indicated or
suggested by the petitioner.
16 We cannot term the exercise on the part of the
respondent authorities as arbitrary or mala fide. In the absence
of pointing out such arbitrariness, according to us, what a
prudent and reasonable thinking mind could do, has been done
in the present case by the authorities who chose the place in
question.
Tilak 24/24 WP-7923-16
17 Accordingly, we opine that no good grounds are
made out to intervene with the decision to shift the location of
DRT No.3 to the new site at Vashi.
18 Accordingly, Petition is dismissed.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
