Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14418 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1276 of 2025 Petitioner :- Susheel Kumar Khanna And 2 Others Respondent :- Punjab National Bank,New Delhi,Branch Office Gzb. Thru. Auth. Officer/Chief Manager And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Garg Counsel for Respondent :- Brajendra Amiy,Prashant Kumar Srivastava,Shishir Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the DRT in Securitization Application No.1067 of 2023, whereby the S.A. was disposed of finally. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners addresses and challenges the said order on two counts. Firstly on merits and secondly by arguing that although the matter was fixed on 13.09.2024, no orders were passed in the court and the order was not even dictated in the open court. 4. In the context of the serious allegations levelled with regard to working of the DRT, this Court had called for the records as well as the report. 5. A report has been submitted that no such order was dictated with the Steno attached with the DRT. The said report has been submitted by the present Presiding Officer DRT, Lucknow after taking the statement of the Stenographer of the Tribunal. The records also reveal that on the date fixed, i.e., 13.09.2024, hand written arguments were filed by the counsel representing the respondent-Bank. The said written arguments are unsigned and there is no notice of the said written arguments being given to any of the parties, as the same do not bear any signatures. 6. This Court had on the earlier occasion also noticed a shortcoming and the manner to which, the decisions were taken by the then Presiding Officer, DRT just prior to the retirement and a CBI inquiry was also ordered. This Court finds that the same counsel Mr. S.M. Furquan is involved in the present case also. The preliminary inquiry report of the CBI had indicated the complicity of the then Presiding Officer of the DRT and Mr. S.M. Furquan, which is prima facie evident in the present case also. Thus, finding that the procedure and the manner, in which the decision has been taken by the DRT, shake the conscience of this Court. 7. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the fact whether any mala fide action was done in the present case also or not. However, the manner of the decision making cannot be sustained and the finding the said order to be short of procedural due process, which renders the entire order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and bad in law. The said order is quashed. 8. The matter is remanded to the DRT to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. The parties would be at liberty to agitate and raise their contentions and counter contentions in accordance with law, which shall be decided by the DRT afresh. 9. It is made clear that any observations made in the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 shall not come in the way of the DRT taking a decision afresh as directed above. 10. The report sent by the DRT is retained by this Court. The records are directed to be returned. The Senior Registrar shall ensure that the records are returned to the DRT expeditiously. 11. To avoid any further delays, all the parties shall appear before the DRT on 28th March, 2025 at 12:00 noon, the Tribunal shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter in terms of the directions. It is made clear that no fresh notices shall be served on the parties in view of the directions issued. 12. The writ petition is allowed in terms of above. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench