ORDER 1. This Court passed the following order on 02.12.2022 - 'By the impugned order, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, has restrained the Judicial Member of the Tribunal from passing any adverse orders in any of the cases (OAs or SAs) pending before him of which he is the Presiding Officer. Such an interim order of not to pass any adverse orders in any of the cases by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal cannot be passed and is unsustainable. At this stage, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ petitionerBar Association has fairly conceded that, let the concerned Judicial Member of the Tribunal proceed further with the hearing of the cases and decide the same on merits and the members of the Bar shall cooperate. However, he has requested that self-respect of the members of the Bar Association shall also be maintained. He has stated at the Bar that therefore, the Bar has no objection if the impugned order is modified to the extent allowing/permitting the Judicial Member of the Tribunal to proceed further with the hearing of the cases and to decide the same by him on merits. In that view of the matter, we modify the impugned order passed by the High Court and permit the petitioner-herein, Judicial Member of the Tribunal to proceed further with the hearing of the matters before him and decide the same on merits. It goes without saying that the Judicial Member as well as the Bar should always try to maintain cordial atmosphere/relationship as both are part of the justice delivery system and both are the two wheels of the chariot of justice. Therefore, it is expected that both the sides may respect each other. We impress upon the petitioner also to see that there is no unnecessary confrontation and he may decide the cases in accordance with law on its own merits. That does not mean that we have commented upon the conduct on the part of the advocates and/or the petitioner-Judicial Member of the Tribunal. We impress upon the petitioner also to see that there is no unnecessary confrontation and he may decide the cases in accordance with law on its own merits. That does not mean that we have commented upon the conduct on the part of the advocates and/or the petitioner-Judicial Member of the Tribunal. It goes without saying that wherever the applications are dismissed for non-prosecution, it will be open for the concerned parties to move for restoration, which may be considered positively with a view to see that no injustice is caused to the litigant. Put up on 12.12.2022. Let a copy of the petition be served in the office of Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General.' 2. It is reported that the Chairman of the DRT/DRAT is seized with the matter looking to the grievances made by the Bar Association, more particularly on the conduct of the petitioner. 3. In that view of the matter, we continue the ad-interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 02.12.2022 and we leave the matter to the Chairman of the DRT/DRAT to take an appropriate decision independently and if required after giving an opportunity to the representative(s) of the Bar Association as well as to the petitioner. 4. With this, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, at this stage. 5. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.