Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 182 (KAR)

V. Padmanabha Kedilaya v. Union of India

2000-02-29

V.GOPALA GOWDA, Y.BHASKAR RAO

body2000
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—This writ petition is filed in the guise of Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the Defendants in Debt Recovery Cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and applicants/Respondents before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, by a practising Advocate who had earlier served as a Judicial Officer from the cadre of Munsiff-cum-Magistrate to the cadre of District and Sessions Judge in the Judicial Department. The prayers sought for is to declare several provisions under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder as null and void and to strike down the same, to direct the Respondents not to award excess interest, and interest at 24 or 25% on the principal or balance principal amount and other reliefs including a direction to the tribunals and appellate tribunals to appoint judicial officer or law graduates to execute the recovery certificates. 2. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Petitioner himself has stated that this writ petition is filed on behalf of the Defendants in Debt Recovery Cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and the applicants before the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The persons on whose behalf this writ petition is filed, are all defaulters of loans borrowed from public financial institutions. They are capable of approaching this Court independently if they need any relief. The writ petition is confined only to a particular category of persons. There is no public interest involved in this writ petition. 3. If the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner are granted, virtually the proceedings under the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder cannot be proceeded with because the provisions sought to be declared as null and void and to strike down are inter-connected with the other provisions under the relevant statute. This Court cannot grant a relief bringing to halt the functioning of the Tribunals or Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Debts Recovery Act. The prayers sought for are misconceived. 4. Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.