IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13336 of 2009 UJJWAL PRASAD SAH, son of late Bhola Prasad Sah, resident of Shermari Bazar, P S – Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, M/S. Punjab National Bank, 7 Bhikaji Cama Pl.ace, New Delhi-110 006. 3. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 4. The Branch Manager, Spl. S. S. I. Branch, Punjab National Bank, J J Complex, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5. The Chairman, S S Techno Plast Pvt. Ltd. 101, Surya Vihar Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna. 6. Vikram Kumar Sah, son of Shrawan Kumar Sah, 101, Surya Vihar Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna. 7. Naveen Kumar Sah, son of Shrawan Kumar Sah, 101, Surya Vihar Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna. 8. Sita Ram Singh, son of Rajendra Pd Singh, I.I.B.M. Compound, Budha Marg, Patna. 9. Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, son of Narayan Singh, I.I.B.M. Compound, Budha Marg, Patna. ----------- 03. 04.01.2010 Obviously there is something amiss in the way the proceeding has been conducted in the present case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The case in question is O.A. No. 7 of 2002. Limited submission of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner is that objection filed by the present petitioner was taken on record. Time was granted for final reply on 2.7.2009. The next date fixed was 6.7.2009 for further arguments. On 6.7.2009, the next date fixed in the matter was 16.7.2009. 16.7.2009 order reads “Heard both the parties. Order reserved.” To the horror of the petitioner no order came to be recorded on his intervention application and the impugned order which has been brought on record shows that it was passed on 7.7.2009. In other - 2 - words, final order was already passed and recorded when hearing concluded on a subsequent date i.e. on 16.7.2009. Obviously there is something amiss in the way records are being maintained or with a hurry in which the matters are being disposed of without taking care of the sanctity of the proceedings by the tribunal which has been constituted under a statutory legislation and is a kin to a “Court”. Certain explanation offered by the respondent Bank does not satisfy this Court or explain the situation. The impugned order dated 7.7.2009 passed in O A No. 7 of 2002 stands quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction that let there be an order passed on the intervention application /objection on behalf of the present petitioner after hearing him. It may also pass such other order which the Tribunal may decide in its wisdom in the matter in accordance with law. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is well advised and cautioned in conduct of proceedings in future. Till the decision by the Tribunal no coercive action will be taken with regard to the property of the present petitioner. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)