JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar, JJ. 1. Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties we proceed to decide this Writ petition at this stage, since only short legal issue in involved in this writ petition. 3. The petition filed by petitioners before Debts Recovery Tribunal has been returned by Registrar on the ground of maintainability vide order dated 29.9.2015, which is challenged in present writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, despite repeated query, could not show any provision under which question of maintainability can be decided by Registrar of Tribunal. This is an issue which can be decided only by appropriate forum and not by ministerial staff, moreso when no such provision is existing in statute empowering Registrar to take a decision on the question of maintainability. 5. We also find some impertinence on the part of Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad inasmuch as petitioners it appears placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Narendra Kanti Lal Shah v. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, delivered on 12.12.2003 and a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Babu Rao and others v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, delivered on 5.7.2005 but Registrar has gone to the extent of disregarding aforesaid judgments observing that judicial explanation does not become binding unless rules are subsequently modified to accommodate need for change. This approach and understanding on the part of Registrar speaks about not only impertinence but lack of judicial knowledge wherein it can ignore verdict of two High Courts on the ground that judgment itself is not binding unless rules are modified. It is something like that where a provision is declared ultra vires by a Court but executive may say that since provision so declared has not been removed from statute book by legislature, therefore, he is bound to follow such provision. We, therefore, condemn this attitude and approach on the part of Registrar in disregarding judgments of two High Courts in such manner. 6. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 29.9.2015 is hereby set aside. We further direct that original application filed by petitioners shall be registered by Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. We, therefore, condemn this attitude and approach on the part of Registrar in disregarding judgments of two High Courts in such manner. 6. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 29.9.2015 is hereby set aside. We further direct that original application filed by petitioners shall be registered by Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. However, it will be open to Tribunal to record deficiencies/objections whatever it finds, whereafter final decision on correctness of those deficiencies/objections will be taken by Tribunal.