Various appeals arose out of the judgment in Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Assn. vs. Union of India rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby certain directions relating to provisions for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals at Chandigarh, had been issued. A Bench of DRT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India in a rented building. Subsequently, a second Bench of DRT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises. However, both the Benches continued to function from the same premises where the earlier Bench was functioning. By a communication, UOI directed that the second Bench would function from the premises acquired for it. Thereupon, the respondent Bar Association made a representation to the Presiding Officers of both the Benches, requesting them to, inter alia, continue to function from the premises from where the first DRT was functioning. However, in the light of the aforesaid communication issued by UOI, the request of the Bar Association was not acceded to. Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking directions to UOI, to inter alia provide adequate accommodation for the functioning of both DRTs; and to frame rules for recruitment/appointment of the Presiding Officer and the Recovery Officers. In light of the assurance on behalf of UOI that adequate space would be taken on lease for the smooth functioning of both the Benches at the same place, and that further, land was also being acquired for housing the DRTs, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the construction of the building shall be completed within three years from the date of its order. However, the High Court did not examine the other issues referred to above on the ground that they were unrelated to the inadequacy of office space needed by the DRTs. Having failed to get the said order reviewed, UOI filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has taken into account the suggestions from Additional Solicitor General and amicus curiae and its response of UOI. Thus the UOI agreed to provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs. 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. 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. Extend the facility of general pool of accommodation to Group A officers and Presiding Officers. Implement the “e-DRT Project” to automate and improve DRT services by building IT systems as expeditiously as possible. Carry out the recruitment of Recovery Officers by promotions, failing which, by deputation, in accordance with the eligibility criteria as defined in the recruitment rules of each DRT. 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, the provisions of Schedules II and III of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court further held that the High Court are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction to superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to oversee the functioning of DRTs and DRATs. Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act leaves no scope for doubt in this behalf. It reads thus: “18. Bar of jurisdiction. On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17.”

Article 227 of the Constitution stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendent over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these courts and tribunals and High Courts shall keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRATs, which fall within their respective jurisdictions. The High Courts shall ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals.