Excerpt:Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context }
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
'title_for_layout' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | ',
'desc' => array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => null,
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
),
'casename_url' => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry',
'args' => array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => '',
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
)
$casename_url = 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$args = array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109363/bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context }
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
'title_for_layout' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | ',
'desc' => array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => null,
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
),
'casename_url' => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry',
'args' => array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => '',
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
)
$casename_url = 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$args = array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109363/bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi l. p. a. no. 54 of 2017 bichitra nanda dash, s/o late mukunda dash … … appellant versus union of india through the secretary, ministry of finance, department of financial services, new delhi & anr. … … respondents ----- coram: hon’ble the acting chief justice hon’ble mr. justice ananda sen ----- for the appellant : m/s rajiv ranjan, sr. advocate pandey neeraj rai & rohit ranjan sinha, advocates for the respondents : mr. rajiv kumar sinha, asgi ------- order no. 02 : dated 9th february, 2017 i.a. no. 1171 of 2017 this interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in w.p. (s) no. 1/2017. learned counsel for the petitioner.....
Judgment:Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
'title_for_layout' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | ',
'desc' => array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => null,
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
),
'casename_url' => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry',
'args' => array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and anr - Citation 109363 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '109363',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => null,
'appellant' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Bichitra Nanda Dash Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'casenote' => '',
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => null,
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Jharkhand',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2017-02-09',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => null,
'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union of India Through the Secretary Minsitry of Finance and Anr',
'sub' => null,
'link' => null,
'circuit' => null
)
)
$casename_url = 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$args = array(
(int) 0 => '109363',
(int) 1 => 'bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109363/bichitra-nanda-dash-vs-secretary-minsitry'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
(int) 0 => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 1
$i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Bichitra Nanda Dash, S/o Late Mukunda Dash … … Appellant Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Anr. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ----- For the Appellant : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Pandey Neeraj Rai & Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, ASGI ------- Order No. 02 : Dated 9th February, 2017 I.A. No. 1171 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to exempt the appellant from filing the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and learned Single Judge while adjourning the matter for 9.3.2017, declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of that order due to paucity of time and hence he has filed this interlocutory application praying therein that filing of the certified copy of the said order passed by the Single Judge be dispensed with. He further submitted that because of the nature of urgency, letters patent appeal was filed on 8.2.2017 and seeing the said urgency, the case was directed to be listed today. He further submitted that the situation was such that if the appeal is not heard today itself, entire appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that seeing urgency of the matter, the appellant has filed this interlocutory application praying therein to exempt him from filing the certified copy of the order passed on 7.2.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of 2 India, opposes the said prayer and submitted that as per Rule 174 read with 175 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, every application should accompany the certified copy of the judgment appealed against. He further submitted that this appeal, without the certified copy of the impugned order, is not maintainable. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused Rule 174 read with 174 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1/2017 was taken up on 7.2.2017 and the learned Single Judge declined to grant the interim relief and adjourned the matter for 9.3.2017. Thus, aggrieved petitioner/ appellant had to file an appeal on the very next date i.e. 8.2.2017, as today i.e. 9.2.2017, as per the appellant, after 12:00 Noon the appellant will superannuate and not only his entire appeal but also his writ petition will become infructuous. Thus, the appellant has no other alternative but to file this appeal without the certified copy. Thus, in this peculiar fact, this Court feels to allow this interlocutory application to the extent that the appellant is exempted to file the certified copy of the order dated 7.2.2017 till 16.2.2017. I.A. No. 1171 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 54 of 2017 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1/2017, whereby the interim relief sought for, in the writ petition has been declined. In the writ petition, the petitioner had payed for the following reliefs :- (a) Holding and declaring that in view of Section 28 of the 3 Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 by means of which Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the petitioner is eligible to hold office of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi till he completes 5 years of service i.e. till 10.04.2018. (b) Upon such declaration, be pleased to direct the respondents to forebear from making the petitioner demit his office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi upon attaining the age of 62 years and allow him to hold office till completion of 5 years of service on 10.04.2018. Thus, interpretation of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 is necessary to decide the entire appeal. Section 28 of the Amended Act, 2016 “substitutes” Section 6 of the Principal Act. The appellant is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that any final order passed in this appeal will have direct bearing on the writ application and, in fact, it will in some way or the other decide the writ petition itself. This Court also feels that while deciding this appeal, Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 has to be interpreted and the effect of Section 28 has to be adjudged. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and ASGI is correct that after the decision of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 1 of 2017. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submits that as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter relating to Judicial Officers is to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Presiding Officer of 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the Judicial Officer. At this stage, learned counsel for both sides expressed their views that they agree that they have no objection if the entire writ petition is recalled from the Court of learned Single Judge and is decided by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court also feels that since the matter relates to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and it involves interpretation of statute and since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. DEBTS Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and another {(2013) 2 SCC574?? has held that the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over the D.R.T., it is proper and appropriate to hear the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1 of 2017 by the Division Bench. Thus, the record of W.P.S. No. 1/2017 is called for from the learned Single Judge, and the Registry is directed to place the same before the Division Bench for Admission. List this case on 20.02.2017. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant praying therein to grant him interim relief, as the appellant is going to superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted, it will be deemed that the appellant will be entitled to hold the office of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short D.R.T.), Ranchi for a terms of 5 years from the date when he was appointed. He further submitted that as he has not attained the age of 65 years, thus the substituted provision will be applicable for him. He further submitted that without enforcing the said provision the appellant is sought to be superannuated, today in the forenoon. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 2.2.2017, passed in W.P. No. 2505 of 2017, has 5 stayed the proposed retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, posted at Coimbatore. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench vide its order dated 7.12.2016 has also granted the same relief to the officer concerned and he was allowed to continue as Presiding Officer. He further submitted that if no order is passed in favour of this appellant today, this appeal and the writ petition will become infructuous as the appellant is supposed to superannuate today at Noon. Learned counsel for the respondents-ASGI has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Vasant Narayan Lothey-Patil Vs. Union of India {Writ Petition (L) No. 3299 of 2016) has rejected the writ petition and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to this appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not take into consideration the effect of substitution nor the said judgment interprets the effect of the substitution and the right which flows from the same nor give any reasons, whereas the interim orders, passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court and also Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench is a reasoned order, though those are the interim orders. It is pertinent to mention here that all the three orders are of the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Further, the appellant will superannuate today at Noon, as it is submitted by learned ASGI that after 12:00 Noon today, the appellant stands superannuated. This means that after 12:00 Noon not only the appeal but also the writ petition will become infructuous. We have already decided to hear the writ petition after recalling the same from the court of learned Single Judge keeping in view the issues involved. By virtue of Section 28 of the Enforcement of Security 6 Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been substituted and has given five years term to a Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed five years. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, as if no interim order is granted, the appellant will be put to a loss, because the appellant, who is the Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi, will superannuate today itself and no person has been appointed in his place. The appellant will also suffer irreparably if the interim order is not granted in his favour. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, there cannot be any scope of re-employment. Further during this intervening period, the litigants in the D.R.T., Ranchi will also suffer as functioning of the Forum will stop. Thus, this Court feels that in this particular case, on the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to pass an interim order. This order is being dictated at 11:45 a.m., because this appellant, as per Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned ASGI, will superannuate today itself at 12:00 Noon. Thus, this Court directs to maintain “status quo” prevalent at the time of dictating the order i.e. 11:45 a.m. with respect to the appellant, Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ranchi till 20.02.2017 i.e. the next date fixed for hearing. I.A. No. 1770 of 2017 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for onward communication. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) AKT