Allahabad High Court
CHANDRALEKHA SINGHversusCANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,LKO. THRU. AUTH. OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted
Holding
The order dated 02‑09‑2024 passed by the DRT is quashed and the matter is remanded for a fresh order after a hearing.
Summary
Petitioner Chandralekha Singh filed a petition under Article 227 challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order dated 02‑09‑2024, alleging that the order was passed without any hearing and was prima facie suspicious. The respondent, Canara Bank Regional Office, contended that an appeal against the same order was pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in a similar matter (Matters Under Article 227 No.5381 of 2024), held that the DRT had violated principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the DRT to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper hearing, with a direction to decide the case expeditiously. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the DRT order dated 02‑09‑2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording a hearing.
- Whether the order is prima facie suspicious and therefore liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Effect of a pending appeal before the DRAT on the petition under Article 227.
Subjects
- Article 227
- natural justice
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- quash order
- remand
- hearing
- bank dispute
- appeal pending
Judgment
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31231
Court No. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3164 of 2025
Petitioner :- Chandralekha Singh
Respondent :- Canara Bank Regional Office,Lko. Thru. Auth.
Officer/Chief Manager And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia,Abhishek Tiwari,Rishabh
Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Shri Rishabh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the respondent/Bank.
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the DRT.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no
hearing was done and the order came to be passed. He draws
my attention to the similar orders passed by this Court wherein
this Court had noticed the prima-facie misconduct of the officer
of the DRT and also directed the CBI to proceed with the
matter. The said order is a series of orders passed by the then
DRT which are prima-facie suspicious and do not inspire
confidence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that against the
impugned order, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal
before the DRAT being Misc. Appeal No.580 of 2024, which is
pending.
5. In view thereof, considering and following the reasoning
recorded in the order dated 10.12.2024 passed Matters Under
Article 227 No.5381 of 2024, impugned order dated 02.09.2024
is quashed.
6. Matter is remanded to the DRT to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
7. The DRT shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously.
8. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 26.5.2025
nishant
Digitally signed by :-
NISHANT MOHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…