Judgment S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23rd October, 2012, passed by the Recovery Officer suo moto recalling an order dated 20th August, 2005, also passed by a Recovery Officer. 3. The case in a nutshell is this. A recovery certificate dated 26th February, 2004 was issued inter-alia in favour of the ICICI Bank Limited under The Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “DRT Act”). ICICI assigned the debt to the petitioner. On the petitioner's application, the Recovery Officer by an order dated 20th August, 2005, added the name of the petitioner in the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI. Over seven years later, another Recovery Officer by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2012, suomoto recalled the order dated 20th August, 2005 on the basis that only the Presiding Officer and not the Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to add the name of the assignee in the recovery certificate. We have come to the conclusion that a Recovery Officer has jurisdiction to bring on record an assignee of the debt in the place of the judgment-creditor / holder of a recovery certificate issued by the DRT or the DRAT, as the case may be. 4. Respondent No.1 is the Official Liquidator of Hukumchand Mills Limited. Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) are the heirs of one Kamlesh Agarwal and respondent No.3 is one Ramesh Chandra Agarwal. We will, for the sake of convenience refer to respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) as “respondent No.2”. Respondent No.4 is the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are guarantors against whom the Recovery Certificate was issued. Respondent No.10 is the Union of India. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the State Bank of India, State Bank of Indore, IDBI Limited, IDBI Bank Limited and IFCI Limited. Respondent Nos.8 and 10 who appeared before us did not oppose the petition. 5. Considering the issues involved, the merits of the matter between the borrowers on the one hand and the petitioner and the other financial institutions on the other, are not relevant. The relevant facts are these. (A)(i) Respondent No.1 availed of various credit facilities from respondent Nos.5 to 9 and ICICI. 5. Considering the issues involved, the merits of the matter between the borrowers on the one hand and the petitioner and the other financial institutions on the other, are not relevant. The relevant facts are these. (A)(i) Respondent No.1 availed of various credit facilities from respondent Nos.5 to 9 and ICICI. The repayment of the amounts due under these facilities was secured, inter-alia, by guarantees issued by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and by the mortgage and hypothecation of the assets of respondent No.1. (ii) In the year 1995, respondent Nos.5 to 9 and ICICI filed Suit No.2084 of 1995 in this Court which was, in the year 2001, transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai. (iii) On 26th February, 2004, the Original Application was allowed and the Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of all the lenders. Pursuant to it, recovery proceedings No.197 of 2004 commenced before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai. (B)(i) On 29th September, 2004, ICICI assigned the debt due to it from respondent No.1 as awarded under the recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application before the Recovery Officer for substituting itself in the place of ICICI. By the said order dated 29th August, 2005, the application was allowed and the petitioner was brought on record in place of ICICI. The Recovery Certificate, accordingly, stood amended. (ii) The petitioner has thereafter been prosecuting the recovery proceedings and enforcing its rights as the assignee. (a) The petitioner, for instance, filed an application to bring itself on record in an appeal filed by respondent No.4 challenging an order dated 26th February, 2004, which was allowed by an order dated 3rd April, 2007. (b) The petitioner was also permitted to represent itself before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Company Petition wherein respondent No.1 was ordered to be wound up. (c) Although it is not decisive of the issues raised in the present case, it is significant to note that on 9th July, 2012, the Recovery Officer had placed the recovery proceedings before the same Presiding Officer who has now issued the oral instructions pursuant to which the impugned order was passed, seeking certain clarifications with respect to the recovery certificate and to sell the mortgaged assets. The Presiding Officer directed the Recovery Officer to execute the recovery certificate inter-alia by selling the mortgaged properties. The Presiding Officer directed the Recovery Officer to execute the recovery certificate inter-alia by selling the mortgaged properties. Pursuant thereto, on 18th July, 2012, the Recovery Officer passed orders appointing a Receiver in respect of the mortgaged properties; directed respondent No.1 to hand over the properties to him and ordered the attachment of the fourth respondent's properties in Mumbai. (C). On 10th August, 2012, respondent No.1 filed an application for setting aside the order dated 18th July, 2012. The Recovery Officer ordered the parties to maintain status quo and adjourned the matter to 12th September, 2012. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Presiding Officer which is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner made three applications to the Recovery Officer for hearing the fourth respondent's application finally. The same was, however, not heard. On the third occasion i.e. on 23rd October, 2012, the Recovery Officer passed the impugned order suo-moto. The debtors had never questioned the petitioner's entitlement as an assignee. Nor had they questioned the validity of the said order dated 20th August, 2005 bringing the name of the petitioner on the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI, the assignor. 6. The impugned order reads as under:- “The Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as a Assignee of ICICI Bank Ltd. is to carry out Amendment in R.C as per the Assignment Agreement. The Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd has filed Application at Exh.8, praying that their name be added in Recovery Certificate as Assignee of ICICI Bank Ltd. Ld Recovery Officer DRT-II by order Dt.20/8/2005 has allowed the prayer 2(a) assigning M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in the of Recovery Certificate in place of ICICI Bank as the later had assigned the R.C to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. But the same is yet to be carried out. Assignment is not the jurisdiction of Recovery Officer. As there is an Amendment in the Recovery Certificate therefore Hon'ble Presiding Officer has the jurisdiction to carry out Assignment and to add the name of Assignee in Recovery Certificate. In view of this the following order is passed. Applicant Bank is directed to carry out the Assignment as per Rules and Procedure of the DRT to proceed further in the matter.” 7. Mr. Colabawala, the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Recovery Officer has power to substitute and bring the assignee on record. In view of this the following order is passed. Applicant Bank is directed to carry out the Assignment as per Rules and Procedure of the DRT to proceed further in the matter.” 7. Mr. Colabawala, the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Recovery Officer has power to substitute and bring the assignee on record. He further submitted that the Recovery Officer has no power to recall his own order or an order passed by his predecessor. Lastly, he submitted that the Recovery Officer and the Presiding Officer were bound by the previous order of the Presiding Officer that once a recovery certificate is issued, an application for substitution of the assignor by the assignee / an application for bringing the assignee on record must be made before the Recovery Officer. 8. The first submission is well founded. It is not necessary, therefore, for us to consider the other submissions. Section 29 of the DRT Act and Rule 85 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, read as under:- “Section 29 – DRT Act, 1993. 29. Application of certain provisions of Income-tax Act. - The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act,1961 (43 of 1961) and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the income-tax; Provided that any reference under the said provisions and the rules to the “assessee” shall be construed as a reference to the defendant under this Act. [emphasis supplied] Rule 85 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Procedure on death of defaulter. Rule 85. If at any time after the certificate is drawn up by the Tax Recovery Officer the defaulter dies, the proceedings under this Schedule (except arrest and detention) may be continued against the legal representative of the defaulter, and the provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the legal representative were the defaulter.” 9. Section 29, therefore, provides for the Income-tax Act and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) to be applied under the DRT Act “with necessary modifications”. There is no dispute that the assignee is entitled to be brought on record i.e. the recovery certificate. Section 29, therefore, provides for the Income-tax Act and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) to be applied under the DRT Act “with necessary modifications”. There is no dispute that the assignee is entitled to be brought on record i.e. the recovery certificate. The only question is whether the Presiding Officer or the Recovery Officer or both are entitled to do so. The said Rules do not deal with cases of assignment. The words “with necessary modifications” in section 29 of the DRT Act would, in our view, include applications for bringing an assignee on record either by substituting the holder of the recovery certificate or by merely adding the name of the assignee in the recovery certificate. The Rules obviously do not refer to the powers of the Tax Recovery Officer to bring an assignee of a debt on record for the Income Tax Act does not contemplate such assignments. The Rules probably do not provide for the assignment of a debt and for bringing the assignee on record for they are not germane to the Rules in relation to the recovery of arrears of tax. The Income-tax department does not assign the tax dues to third parties. Even if it does, it does not contemplate the recovery thereof by such third parties under the Rules. The DRT Act does not deal with the dues of the State or of statutory bodies alone. By bringing the name of an assignee on the recovery certificate, the Recovery Officer does not question the correctness thereof. He merely enables the assignee to recover the amounts due thereunder in accordance with the assignors wishes or in accordance with the assignors legal objections. Indeed, when the Original Application for recovery is being considered, the question does not arise for there is no recovery certificate. If at that time, the debt is assigned the assignee can apply only before the Presiding Officer to be brought on record of the OA. However, once a recovery certificate is issued, we see no reason why the Recovery Officer would have no power or jurisdiction to bring the name of the assignee thereon. 10. Rule 85 entitles the Tax Recovery Officer to bring the heirs of an assignee on record. In view of section 29 of the DRT Act, the Presiding Officer is also expressly conferred with this power. 10. Rule 85 entitles the Tax Recovery Officer to bring the heirs of an assignee on record. In view of section 29 of the DRT Act, the Presiding Officer is also expressly conferred with this power. There may well be a dispute as to who the heirs are. The Presiding Officer must consider the application in that regard before bringing the relevant heirs on record. The Tax Recovery Officer and, accordingly, the Recovery Officer under the DRT Act has even wider powers under Rule 11 of the said Rules. Under Rule 11, where any claim is preferred or any objection is made to the attachment or sale of any property in execution of a certificate on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment or sale, the Tax Recovery Officer is required to investigate the claim or objection. In doing so, he must, for instance, consider the evidence adduced by the claimant or the objector referred to in sub-rule (3). Depending upon the result of his investigation, he is entitled to release the property wholly or to such extent as he thinks fit, from attachment or sale. 11. Issues such as these entrusted to the Tax Recovery Officer / Presiding Officer are of greater complexity than the question of bringing an assignee on record in a recovery certificate especially when the assignment itself has not been disputed by any of the parties. If, therefore, a Recovery Officer is expressly conferred with such powers, there can be no objection to his being conferred with the power of deciding whether or not to allow an application for bringing an assignee on record of the recovery certificate. 12. In the case before us, the assignment has not only not been disputed by the assignor/certificate holder viz. ICICI, but has not even been disputed by the judgment debtors. Even assuming that there is a dispute as to who the assignee is or as to the validity of the assignment, the Recovery Officer would have the power to bring the assignee on record. 13. A party aggrieved by an order in this regard is not left without a remedy. It is entitled to file an appeal under section 30 of the DRT Act. 14. 13. A party aggrieved by an order in this regard is not left without a remedy. It is entitled to file an appeal under section 30 of the DRT Act. 14. The Recovery Officer, therefore, had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 20th August, 2005, bringing the petitioner on record in the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI in view of the assignment. The impugned order, which held otherwise, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 15. We do not suggest that the Recovery Officer has the exclusive right to consider an application for bringing an assignee on record in the place of the assignor. The Presiding Officer also has the power to do so. If such an application is made to the Presiding Officer or to the Recovery Officer they are bound to consider the same. The Presiding Officer is not entitled to direct the Recovery Officer to decide an application before him. Nor is the Recovery Officer entitled to transfer such an application filed before him to the Presiding Officer. 16. In view of what we have held, it is not necessary to consider Mr. Colabawala's other submissions. 17. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer (a). There shall, however, be no order as to costs.