JUDGMENT The applicant-bank has taken out Judge's Summons dated 11.5.2011, seeking below mentioned directions:- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator to release and hand over the actual and physical possession of Office Premises No.12, First Floor, Janpath Complex, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad to the Court Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer of the DRT Ahmedabad in R.P.No.2372 for sell of the said property by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act towards recovery of certified dues of the Applicant. (B) In the meanwhile, be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator to cooperate the Applicant in R.P.No.2372 for recovery of certified dues of the Applicant by sale of the above referred property by the Recovery Officer of the DRT Ahmedabad under the RDB Act.” 1.1 The Judge's Summons is registered as Company Application No.348 of 2011. 2. Mr. Panesar, learned advocate, has appeared for the applicant-bank, and Mr. Yadav, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent – OL. 3. The applicant – bank has claimed that certain order/decree has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [“Tribunal” for short] in its favour and the said decree has to be executed against the property of the company which, according to the applicant, is available (viz. Office Premises No.12, First Floor, Janpath Complex, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad) and for that purpose, the Tribunal issued Recovery Certificate and forwarded it to the Recovery Officer who, in the process of execution of the decree, has attached the abovementioned property of the company. The Recovery Officer proposes to sell the said property for recovering the dues as per the decree. It is also claimed that for the said purpose, the Recovery Officer requires physical possession of the property which, pursuant to the order of winding-up process, is in possession of the OL. In this factual background, it is claimed that present application has been taken out seeking direction against the OL to release the said property and hand over the actual and physical possession. 4. In this context, it is pertinent and necessary to note that the application seeking direction against the OL, to hand over the possession, has not been taken out by the Recovery Officer (to whom the Tribunal forwarded the certificate for execution) who is legally obliged and responsible for executing the certificate, but it has been taken out by a financial institution, i.e. the creditor - Indusind Bank Limited. 4.1 In support of the summons, affidavit has been filed wherein it is, inter alia, stated that:- “2. I say that in the year 1996, Applicant had lent and advanced sizeable financial assistance to M/s. Rahil Investment & Finance Limited. Since the said company failed to repay the dues, the Applicant filed Original Application No.193 of 1997 against the said company in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad for recovery of Rs.17,39,242/- together with further interest thereon @ 23.75% per annum and costs. I further say that the Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad has been pleased to pass judgment dated 30.8.2005 in favour of the Applicant and against the said company for recovery of sum of Rs.17,39,242-48 together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 20.06.1997 until realization. In the said Judgment, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has also accepted and approved the First Equitable Mortgage of the Applicant Bank over the property of the company comprising of “all that piece and parcel of whole land admeasuring 32.66 square meters situated, lying and being at “Janpath Complex” Ashram Road, Mouje Chhadawad, Taluka City, in the Registration District and Sub-District, Ahmedabad bearing Survey No.123/P, Sub-Plot No.510+511/B of Final Plot No.510+511/P of T.P. Scheme No.3/5 varied + Office Premises No.12 on the 1st Floor of the complex admeasuring about 53.02 square meters or thereabouts” i.e. Office Premises No.12, First Floor, Janpath Complex, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The Debts Recovery Tribunal further ordered for realization of decreetal dues out of the aforesaid mortgaged property. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has also issued Recovery Certificate No.2372 in terms of the above Judgment against the company. Hence, the Applicant is “Secured Creditor” of Rahil Investment & Finance Limited (in liquidation). True Copy of the Judgment dated 30.8.2005 and Recovery Certificate dated 1.9.2005 issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is attached and marked as ANNEXURE-A. 3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has also issued Recovery Certificate No.2372 in terms of the above Judgment against the company. Hence, the Applicant is “Secured Creditor” of Rahil Investment & Finance Limited (in liquidation). True Copy of the Judgment dated 30.8.2005 and Recovery Certificate dated 1.9.2005 issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is attached and marked as ANNEXURE-A. 3. I say that thereafter in pursuance to the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by this Honourable Court in Company Petition No.3 of 2001, M/s. Rahil Investment and Finance Limited was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Honourable Court has been appointed Liquidator of the said company in liquidation and the Official Liquidator has also taken the possession of property of the Company in Liquidation which is exclusively mortgaged to the Applicant Bank.” 4.2 Having mentioned the aforesaid details, the applicant – bank has then stated that it had filed application before the Recovery Officer “seeking direction against the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the property in question to the Court Receiver”. It is also claimed that it was the Recovery Officer, who directed the bank to send copy of the application to OL and since despite the service of application the OL did not appear in the proceedings nor did he hand over the possession, the creditor bank preferred present application. 4.3 The relevant averments are to be found in para 4 and 5 of the supporting affidavit, which read thus:- “4. I say that thereafter, the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad initiated Recovery Proceeding No.2372 against the company in liquidation for recovery of certified dues of the Applicant. However, since the property in question which is mortgaged with the Applicant Bank was in possession of the Official Liquidator, the Applicant Bank filed an application before the Recovery Officer seeking direction against the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the property in question to the Court Receiver. The Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide order dated 6.6.2007, directed the Applicant Bank herein to serve the said application upon the Official Liquidator and kept the matter on 26.9.2007 for filing reply by the Official Liquidator. However, on 26.9.2007, the Official Liquidator despite the service of the application neither appeared in the recovery proceedings nor filed any reply to the said application filed by the Applicant Bank. However, on 26.9.2007, the Official Liquidator despite the service of the application neither appeared in the recovery proceedings nor filed any reply to the said application filed by the Applicant Bank. Hence, the Recovery Officer on 26.9.2007 passed detailed order directing the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the property in question to the Court Receiver and also directed the Applicant Bank to serve the copy of the said order upon the Official Liquidator and file compliance affidavit on the next date and posted the matter on 2.11.2007. True copy of the order dated 6.6.2007 and 26.9.2007 passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings No.2372 are attached herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure-B Colly. 5. I say that the said order dated 26.9.2007 was served upon the Official Liquidator on 4.10.2007, however, since the Official Liquidator did not comply with the said order, the Applicant Bank vide letter dated 26.10.2007 requested the Official Liquidator to handover the possession of the property in question in compliance of the order dated 26.9.2007. The Official Liquidator vide his letter dated 2.11.2007, informed to Applicant Bank to move to this Honourable Court for obtaining necessary orders of release of the property with directions to the Official Liquidator to handover the possession as ordered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. True copy of the Letter dated 26.10.2007 sent by the Applicant to the Official Liquidator and its reply dated 2.11.2007 sent by the Official Liquidator are attached and collectively marked as ANNEXURE-C COLLY.” 4.4 It is, in this background, that the applicant - bank has filed present application and in support of the request, below mentioned justification is averred in para-6:- “6. The Applicant respectfully submits that though the Learned Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad twice attempted to put the aforesaid property to sale under the RDB Act, but in absence of actual possession, no bidders came forward to purchase the property. Hence, the Applicant once again sent letter dated 7.1.2008 and 30.3.2009 and requested the Official Liquidator to release the possession of the property. However, the Official Liquidator vide letter dated 18.6.2009 reiterated to approach this Honourable Court. True copy of the said letter dated 7.1.2008 sent by the Applicant to the Official Liquidator and reply dated 18.6.2009 sent by the Official Liquidator are attached and collectively marked as ANNEXURE-D Colly.” 5. However, the Official Liquidator vide letter dated 18.6.2009 reiterated to approach this Honourable Court. True copy of the said letter dated 7.1.2008 sent by the Applicant to the Official Liquidator and reply dated 18.6.2009 sent by the Official Liquidator are attached and collectively marked as ANNEXURE-D Colly.” 5. During the hearing of present application, grievance was made by the learned counsel for the applicant – bank that the OL is not attending the proceedings before the DRT and the proceedings usually remain unattended in almost all cases before the DRT. In view of the said submission and grievance made by the learned advocate for the applicant – bank, this Court passed certain orders/directions vide order dated 18.10.2011, 8.11.2011, 15.11.2011 and 28.12.2011. In the order dated 18.10.2011, it was observed and directed that:- “3.0 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that he is making submissions with all responsibilities without going into the issue as to whether the Official Liquidator has proper justification for not attending the proceedings. In his submission, fact of the matter is that after intimation also the proceedings are not being attended by the Official Liquidator otherwise such objection can be raised at the relevant time. 4.0 Under the circumstances, Official Liquidator is directed to file a reply stating as to whether the proceedings before the Tribunal/Recovery Officer, particularly the proceedings related to sale of properties of the company (in liquidation) are being attended by the representative of Official Liquidator or not and the details also may be placed on record declaring as to how many such intimations have been received and out of those intimations how many proceedings have been regularly attended by the representative of the Official Liquidator. If proceedings are not being attended then reasons for remaining absent, even after the intimation, shall also be stated in the report. 4.1 Official Liquidator shall also clarify as to whether the office of Official Liquidator has designated a representative to attend the proceedings before the DRT or Recovery Officer or not. Official Liquidator shall also explain reason for objection if any.” 5.1 Thereafter, certain report came to be filed, however, it was not complete as regards the details required by the Court and therefore, order dated 15.11.2011 was passed, which read thus:- “Mr. Official Liquidator shall also explain reason for objection if any.” 5.1 Thereafter, certain report came to be filed, however, it was not complete as regards the details required by the Court and therefore, order dated 15.11.2011 was passed, which read thus:- “Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for O.L. has sought to place on record a report claiming that it is in compliance of the directions given by the Court. However, on perusal of the report, it prima facie appears that the report does not address all the aspects and directions contained in the order dated 18.10.2011 read with the order dated 08.11.2011. Mr. Yadav has, therefore, requested that some more time may be granted to file appropriate reply/report. The incomplete report, in the sense that it does not address the issues and directions contained in the above referred two orders, is not accepted on record and is returned to the learned Advocate with a direction to file appropriate complete report addressing all issues and aspects as contained in above referred two orders within a period of 10 days. Any delay will not be countenanced lightly. S.O. to 25th November 2011.” 5.2 The said order was followed by order dated 28.12.2011. The relevant portion of the said order is para 2 and 3, which read thus:- “2. On perusal of the annexures to the report, it is noticed that in most of the proceedings before the DRT, any effective representation has not been made on behalf of / by the OL and almost all cases appear to have proceeded without representation of the OL and/or without any submissions or objections being raised by the OL before the DRT either in connection with the proceedings or against the relief prayed for by the secured creditors in the proceedings before the DRT. Even ornamental presence do not appear to have been effected by the OL and all proceedings appear to have been conducted without presence of the representative of the OL. 3. Mr. Even ornamental presence do not appear to have been effected by the OL and all proceedings appear to have been conducted without presence of the representative of the OL. 3. Mr. Yadav, learned advocate for the OL, is directed to place on record his own independent report giving assessment of the proceedings before the DRT and other Courts/Tribunals and the conduct of the proceedings before the said fora.” 5.3 In furtherance of the proceedings, learned counsel for the OL has placed on record a special report dated 3.2.2012 containing his views on the issues raised in light of the OL's alleged absence in almost all the cases before the DRT. Appropriate directions on this count are required to be passed which shall be passed separately by separate order. 6. However, so far as the request made by the applicant – bank in present application is concerned, it is relevant to take into account certain relevant provisions contained under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Rules Framed thereunder. 6.1 The provisions under Section 19 of the Act make provision for application to be made to the Tribunal. The said Section contains 25 sub-sections, which cover almost all aspects and entire sphere or field of steps and process related to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The relevant provisions, for the purpose of hand, are sub-sections (20), (22), (23) and (25) which read thus:- “(20) The Tribunal may, after giving the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of being heard, pass such interim or final order, including the order for payment of interest from the date on or before which payment of the amount is found due upto the date of realisation or actual payment, on the application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. (22) the Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate under his signature on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate. (22) the Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate under his signature on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate. (23) Where the Tribunal, which has issued a certificate of recovery, is satisfied that the property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of two or more Tribunals, it may send the copies of the certificate of recovery for execution to such other Tribunals where the property is situated: Provided that in a case where the Tribunal to which the certificate of recovery is sent for execution finds that it has no jurisdiction to comply with the certificate of recovery, it shall return the same to the Tribunal which has issued it. (25) The Tribunal may make such orders and give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.” 6.2 The aforesaid provisions are followed by the provision contained under Chapter V which deals with the “recovery of debt determined by the tribunal”. Under the said Chapter, Section 25 makes provision for “modes of recovery of debts”, Section 26 provides for provision regarding “validity of certificate” and Section 28 prescribes other modes of recovery. The Section 25 and Section 26 and Section 28(1) (2) (3)(i) to (x) (4) and (5) read thus:- “25. Modes of recovery of debts. The Recovery Officer shall, on receipt of the copy of the certificate under sub-section (7) of section 19, proceed to recover the amount of debt specified in the certificate by one or more of the following modes, namely: - (a) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the defendant; (b) arrest of the defendant and his detention in prison; (c) appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the defendant. 26. Validity of certificate and amendment thereof. - (1) It shall not be open to the defendant to dispute before the Recovery Officer the correctness of the amount specified in the certificate, and no objection to the certificate on any other ground shall also be entertained by the Recovery Officer. 26. Validity of certificate and amendment thereof. - (1) It shall not be open to the defendant to dispute before the Recovery Officer the correctness of the amount specified in the certificate, and no objection to the certificate on any other ground shall also be entertained by the Recovery Officer. (2) Notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Recovery Officer, the Presiding Officer shall have power to withdraw the certificate or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by sending an intimation to the Recovery Officer. (3) The Presiding Officer shall intimate to the Recovery Officer any order withdrawing or cancelling a certificate or any correction made by him under sub-section (2). 28. Other modes of recovery. - (1) Where a certificate has been issued to the Recovery Officer under sub-section (7) of section 19, the Recovery Officer may, without prejudice to the modes of recovery specified in section 25, recover the amount of debt by any one or more of the modes provided under this section. (2) If any amount is due from any person to the defendant, the Recovery Officer may require such person to deduct from the said amount, the amount of debt due from the defendant under this Act and such person shall comply with any such requisition and shall pay the sum so deducted to the credit of the Recovery Officer: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any part of the amount exempt from attachment in execution of a decree of a civil court under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (3) (i) The Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing, require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the defendant or to any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the defendant, to pay to the Recovery Officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount of debt due from the defendant or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. (ii) A notice under this sub-section may be issued to any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of the defendant jointly with any other person and for the purposes of this sub-section, the shares of the joint holders in such amount shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be equal. (iii) A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the defendant at his last address known to the Recovery Officer and in the case of a joint account to all the joint holders at their last addresses known to the Recovery Officer. (iv) Save as otherwise provided in this sub-section, every person to whom a notice is issued under this sub-section shall be bound to comply with such notice, and, in particular. where any such notice is issued to a post office, bank, financial institution, or an insurer, it shall not be necessary for any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other document to be produced for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like to be made before the payment is made notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary. (v) Any claim respecting any property in relation to which a notice under this sub-section has been issued arising after the date of the notice shall be void as against any demand contained in the notice. (vi) Where a person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent objects to it by a statement on oath that the sum demanded or the part thereof is not due to the defendant or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the defendant, then, nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to require such person to pay any such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, but if it is discovered that such statement was false in any material particular, such person shall be personally liable, to the Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the defendant on the date of the notice, or to the extent of the defendant's liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less, 10 (vii) The Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, amend or revoke any notice under this sub-section or extend the time for making any payment in pursuance of such notice. (viii) The Recovery Officer shall grant a receipt for any amount paid in compliance with a notice issued under this sub-section, and the person so paying shall be fully discharged from his liability to the defendant to the extent of the amount so paid. (ix) Any person discharging any liability to the defendant after the receipt of a notice under this sub-section shall be personally liable to the Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the defendant so discharged or to the extent of the defendant's liability for any debt due under this Act, whichever is less. (x) If the person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent fails to make payment in pursuance thereof to the Recovery Officer, he shall be deemed to be a defendant in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and further proceedings may be taken against him for the realisation of the amount as if it were a debt due from him, in the manner provided in sections 25, 26 and 27 and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under section 25. (4) The Recovery Officer may apply to the court in whose custody there is money belonging to the defendant for payment to him of the entire amount of such money, or if it is more than the amount of debt due, an amount sufficient to discharge the amount of debt so due. (5) The Recovery Officer may recover any amount of debt due from the defendant by distraint and sale of his movable property in the manner laid down in the Third Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).” 7. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it emerges that Section 19, Section 25 and Section 28 prescribe entire procedure to execute the recovery certificate for recovering the amount as per the recovery certificate. 7.1 In particular Section 28 gives the step-by-step procedure to be followed by the Recovery Officer. 7.2 A conjoint reading of the said Section also makes it clear that the obligation, duty and responsibility of recovering the amount, the responsibility of executing the certificate is statutorily cast on the Recovery Officer and the said function, as per the Act, is his statutory duty. 7.2 A conjoint reading of the said Section also makes it clear that the obligation, duty and responsibility of recovering the amount, the responsibility of executing the certificate is statutorily cast on the Recovery Officer and the said function, as per the Act, is his statutory duty. 7.3 Sub-section (4) obliges the recovery officer to make application to the Court in whose custody the money/property to satisfy the certificate, is. 7.4 Sub-section (5) prescribes that the Recovery Officer may recover the amount by sale of movable property. 7.5 Thus, once the recovery certificate is issued and it is forwarded to the recovery officer [Section 19(22)] then, it is the recovery officer who, thereafter, is required to discharge his duties and for that purpose, it is the recovery officer who must take steps as per the procedure prescribed under Sections 25 and 28 of the Act and he should take all such actions which are necessary for executing the recovery certificate. 7.6 The Recovery Officer is statutory authority constituted under the Act and is conferred with the power and authority as well as the obligation to execute the recovery certificate. 7.7 The duty and obligation to execute the recovery certificate is, by the Act, cast on the Recovery Officer by the statute. Thus, it is the statutory duty and obligation of the Recovery Officer to execute the recovery certificate and recover the certified dues in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act and the Rules. 8. The provisions under the Act and the Rules confer ample power and authority on the Recovery Officer to take steps including the authority to take steps in the event the judgment debtor does not make the payment and such power includes the power to attach the property and to take possession of and dispose the property and to take necessary actions as may be considered appropriate for executing the recovery certificate. 8.1 The said authority cannot delegate his powers conferred on him by the Act nor can he abdicate and/or ignore his duties cast on him by the statute and cannot delay the action required to be taken for discharging the duties and he also can not allow some one else e.g. judgment creditor to initiate any action – such as making application to the Court – which he is supposed to and obliged to initiate. 8.2 The recovery officer can not just take a corner seat and sit down and watch others take all actions and/or let others take actions which are his obligations. 8.3 All steps and actions required to be taken for the purpose of and in the direction towards executing the recovery certificate to recover the dues, must be taken by the recovery officer i.e. must be taken by him to whom the certificate is forwarded for execution. The duty must be discharged by him to whom it is assigned and in the manner as is prescribed by the Act. 8.4 If it is found by the Recovery Officer that certain property is in possession of any other statutory authority then it is for the Recovery Officer to take necessary actions or to approach appropriate Court and seek necessary order against the said other authority. 8.5 However, in any case, the judgment creditor, on his own, cannot make application for such purpose i.e. to seek appropriate order against another statutory authority/the judgment debtor in furtherance of and on the strength of the Recovery Certificate which the Tribunal addresses/forwards to the Recovery Officer. 8.6 The judgment creditor cannot rush to the Court and cannot file application seeking directions in furtherance of and in aid of the process of executing the recovery certificate e.g. direction against the judgment debtor to hand over the possession of the property to the Recovery Officer. The judgment creditor, being the interested party (after the issuance of recovery certificate) in execution of the recovery certificate can, at the most, request the Recovery Officer to discharge his duties expeditiously, but it cannot itself initiate proceedings and cannot take action as per its own choice/decision. Any application for such purpose by the judgment creditor would amount to the judgment creditor wearing the robe of the recovery officer and taking up the role of the Recovery Officer and trying to take steps which the Recovery Officer is obliged, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, to take. 8.7 If any application is required to be made to the Court for getting the possession of the property then such application can be and should be made by the Recovery Officer. 8.7 If any application is required to be made to the Court for getting the possession of the property then such application can be and should be made by the Recovery Officer. 8.8 It is for the Recovery Officer to decide, in accordance with the provisions under Section 19, Section 25 and Section 28 of the Act, the course of action which he should take in the facts of the case. 9. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention at this stage that applications are being brought to the Court by the judgment creditors, instead of by the Recovery Officer, during the pendency of proceedings before the Recovery Officer/Tribunal. In view of such applications being filed by the judgment creditor, it appears that the Recovery Officer is failing in his statutory duty and obligations and is ignoring and neglecting his functions and fails to discharge his duties and on being/feeling frustrated by the recovery officer's consistently indifferent attitude the judgment creditor/s prefer such applications before the Court. Even if that is so (i.e. if that is the reason for such applications) then also, the judgment creditor can, in view of the relevant provisions, ask the Recovery Officer to take appropriate and necessary actions, including the action of filing appropriate application in the Court and the Recovery Officer ought to take action which is appropriate and necessary in the facts of the case but the judgment creditor on its own cannot decide, on its own, the course of action and/or cannot take action which it considers appropriate and necessary. If at all, for any reason – including the reason of failure in discharging the duty or inaction on part of Recovery Officer the judgment creditor feels compelled to take action / file application and seek direction then, it can do so against the Recovery Officer [and seek directions against the Recovery Officer to perform his duties as per the provisions under Section 19(20), (22), (23), (25), Section 25 and Section 28, etc.], pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued by the Presiding Officer. In view of the position emerging from the relevant provisions, as discussed above, present application does not deserve to be entertained and therefore, it is not entertained. 10. In view of the position emerging from the relevant provisions, as discussed above, present application does not deserve to be entertained and therefore, it is not entertained. 10. It is, however, clarified that it would be open to the Recovery Officer to take necessary and appropriate decision and if he considers necessary and appropriate to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court or Forum, he may do so in accordance with law and if the recovery officer fails in performing his duties, it would be open to the applicant to seek appropriate directions against the Recovery Officer. The application stands disposed of accordingly.