High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 in Recovery Proceedings: Mandamus for Possession Delivery

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Allahabad High Court’s decision in M/S Durga Travels Thru. Proprietor Pankaj Sharma & Ors. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:15469), rendered on March 12, 2025, under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioners, a consortium of transport operators led by M/S Durga Travels, had approached the High Court challenging the Debts Recovery Tribunal’s (DRT) failure to implement its own order directing delivery of physical possession of mortgaged property. The key issues concern (i) the scope of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“RDB Act”), and (ii) the grant of mandamus compelling the Administrative District Magistrate (ADM) and local police (SHO) to facilitate possession.

Parties:

• Petitioners: M/S Durga Travels Thru. Proprietor Pankaj Sharma & 3 Others
• Respondents: Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow & 2 Others (including the ADM and SHO concerned)

• For Petitioners: Ashish Chaturvedi, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Vandana Singh
• For Respondents: Abhishek Khare, Parul Sharma, Shivansh Shukla

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, in a concise but decisive order, allowed the Article 227 petition. It found that the DRT’s earlier direction for delivery of possession of the secured asset had not been implemented by the executive authorities. To remedy this breach, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the ADM, with assistance of the SHO, to hand over possession of the property to the petitioners forthwith. The Court also restrained the petitioners from creating any third‑party rights over the property, preserving its status until final adjudication of the underlying recovery proceedings.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Although the order itself does not recite a long list of precedents, its reasoning builds upon established case law concerning:

• Article 227 Jurisdiction: In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2010) 11 SCC 1, the Supreme Court underscored the High Court’s supervisory role over inferior courts and tribunals to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principle was reiterated in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311.
• Enforcement of Tribunal Orders: The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Tropica Products Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 627 held that when a tribunal pronounces a decree or order, executive authorities must act promptly to implement it, failing which the party aggrieved may seek mandamus from the High Court.
• Possession After Sale Certificate: United Commercial Bank v. K. Rajagopal (2003) 4 SCC 499 affirmed that once a sale certificate is issued under Section 31A of the RDB Act, the purchaser’s right to possession crystallizes, and any delay by the local administration undermines the statutory scheme.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning can be broken down into three interrelated facets:

1. Existence of a Valid Tribunal Order: The petitioners produced a copy of the DRT’s order directing possession. The Court noted that this order is akin to a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure once it attains finality.
2. Obligation of Executive Authorities: Relying on the principle that judicial and quasi‑judicial decrees must be executed without delay, the Court observed that the ADM and SHO have a statutory duty to give effect to the DRT’s directive. Any inaction attracts supervisory interference under Article 227.
3. Grant of Mandamus: Invoking its power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and to ensure due process, the Court directed the ADM to coordinate with the SHO for immediate delivery of possession. The prohibition on creating third‑party rights preserves the property’s status quo and prevents collusive transactions.

3.3 Impact

The judgment reinforces several important legal norms:

• Effective Supervision: High Courts will not hesitate to invoke Article 227 to correct non‑implementation of orders by specialized tribunals.
• Prompt Execution: Tribunals and executive authorities must work in tandem to ensure swift delivery of possession once a sale certificate or directive has been issued.
• Protection of Purchaser’s Rights: Buyers at debt recovery auctions gain confidence that their legal title will be respected and enforced, minimizing pendency and loss of value.
• Preventing Collusion: Restraining the creation of third‑party rights guards against fraudulent transfers in the interim period.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 227 of the Constitution: Grants supervisory jurisdiction to High Courts to oversee the functioning of all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, ensuring they act within lawful bounds.

Mandamus: A public law remedy in the nature of an order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty which it has failed or refused to perform.

Sale Certificate under RDB Act: A document issued by the DRT to a successful bidder in a debt recovery sale, entitling the purchaser to ownership and possession of the secured asset.

Article 227 vs. Article 226: While Article 226 deals with enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights by writs, Article 227 is strictly supervisory over subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure legality and propriety of their orders.

5. Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in M/S Durga Travels reaffirms the indispensable role of High Courts in safeguarding the efficacy of specialized tribunals under the RDB Act. By issuing mandamus to enforce the DRT’s possession order, the Court has underscored that neither procedural delay nor executive apathy can thwart the realization of rights granted by a tribunal. This ruling will serve as a guiding precedent to ensure that recovery proceedings culminate in tangible relief for successful bidders, thereby bolstering the credibility of the debt‑recovery framework in India.