Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filled by the Presiding Officer M.M. Dhonchak (‘petitioner’) Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 (‘DRT’), Chandigarh, against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein adverse observations were made against him. The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., refused to entertain the petition and criticised the petitioner’s action for rushing to the Court when the matter is pending before the High Court.
Background
The members of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had filed a petition against the Presiding Officer M.M. Dhonchak, DRT-2, Chandigarh, alleging him of harassing the counsels and ‘long adjournments’ of the hearings. The High Court had ordered restraining the petitioner from passing any adverse orders in any case pending before him. An appeal was filed before the Court and the said order of the High Court was modified, and the petitioner was allowed to hear the pending matters before him.
The present petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the adverse observations made against him by the High Court while passing the order.
Court’s Order
The Court said that it was very unfortunate that the petitioner had filed the present petition, knowing that the High Court was looking into the grievances raised by the other members of the DRT Bar Association against the petitioner. The Court also said that knowing that the counsel for the Tribunal was enquiring that at what stage the pending grievances raised against the petitioner are, before the Chairman, Debit Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner should not have rushed before the Court.
Thus, the Court refused to hear the petition and expressed its displeasure for filing of the same while dismissing the petition. The Court also permitted the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition as the petitioner is also the member of the DRT.
[M.M. Dhonchak v. Debts Recover Tribunal Bar Association, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 637, Order Dated: 12-05-2023]
