Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 131 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of candidature - appointments to the post of Presiding Officer of the DRT - main submission of appellant is that the ACC has acted arbitrarily in differing from the view expressed by the Selection Committee, without giving any reasons - Held that:- The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the DRT Bill noted that its purpose was the creation of special tribunals “with special powers of adjudication of such matters and speedy recovery as critical to the successful implementation of the financial sector reforms”. It was noted that the existing procedure for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions had blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, “the value of which deteriorates of which the passage of time.” In the present case, no doubt that the two Appellants were recommended by the Selection Committee on 30th March 2016 for appointment as Presiding Officers of the DRT. Their names were thereafter sent for verification to the IB. The IB reports along with the recommendation of the Selection Committee were thereafter placed before the ACC which comprises the Prime Minister of India (who is the Chairman of the ACC) and the Union Minister for Home Affairs in the first instance on 1st February 2017. The ACC on that date did not take a decision as to the appointments of the two Appellants. The ACC called for a fresh IB Report in respect of the two Appellants. Thereafter for the second time on 1st August 2017, the ACC considered the case of the two appellants along, in light of the fresh IB report and decided not to appoint them as Presiding Officers. This was then communicated to each of them by separate Om dated 8th August, 2017. In the present case, the ACC was the final authority. The fact that the ACC called for a fresh IB report is an indication that it wanted to be doubly sure before acting on the first report of the IB. This could be viewed as an extra check against arbitrariness arising from a subjective assessment of the person preparing the IB report. There was no need for the ACC to disclose why it was asking for a fresh IB report. Much less was there any requirement in law for ACC for the Respondents to inform the Appellants why the ACC asked for a fresh IB report. Appeal dismissed.
|