Point of law: power of Section 14 encapsulates 'States coercive powers' for obtaining possession of the secured asset, which is essentially administrative or executive in nature. Merely for the purpose of verification of compliance referred to under the first proviso of Section 14, it may partake the quasi-judicial character

JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“....declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 seized the Petitioner Firm Properties Immovable as well as Movables etc. covered in S. No. 270/2B in an extent of Acs. 3.00 cents Guttpalli Village, Sambepalli Mandal within the limits of 6th respondent in connection with Order passed in Crl. MP No. 93/2019 dated 22.4.2019 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa by invoking Section 14 of SARFAESI Act even without informing nor given any notice to the petitioner nor filing any Seizure Report before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa. Continuing with Seizure, Lock and Key of the Petitioner Properties it is nothing but illegal, unauthorisedly, unlawfully even though the Case in Crl. M.P. No. 93/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate is dismissed dated 4.3.2020 all are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary as against the Law and Procedure, Violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to handover the entire seized properties after breaking open lock and key of the petitioner firm milk Chilling Unit in the interest of the justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Factual matrix of the case is to the effect that the petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent-Bank against the secured asset which came to be the subject-matter of proceeding under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘2002 Act’) being Crl. M.P. No. 93 of 2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa.

3. On 20.3.2019 the following order was passed:

“In the above circumstances, Sri. B. Shuban, Advocate is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the petition schedule properties and deliver the same to the petitioner after making an inventory of articles, if any, found in the petition schedule property by conducting panchanama. The learned Advocate Commissioner is also directed to break open the lock (locks) if necessary and the Station House Officer of the concerned police station is directed to assist the learned Advocate Commissioner in executing the warrant......”

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on number of dates for filing report of the Advocate Commissioner. On 4.3.2020 the proceeding was closed observing that the respondent-Bank was not showing interest to proceed further. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality of the proceedings and the action of the respondent-Bank in taking possession of the secured asset in question without notice to it and on reference to the aforesaid proceeding.

4. Counter has been filed on behalf of the bank wherein it is pleaded that the secured asset was taken possession of by the Advocate Commissioner on 4.12.2019 pursuant to the direction issued by the Magistrate on 20.3.2019. Inadvertently, report of the Advocate Commissioner was not placed before the learned Magistrate and the proceeding came to be closed. Subsequently, the error was noticed and prayer was made to reopen the proceeding so that the report of the Advocate Commissioner could be placed on record. On 7.12.2020 the learned Magistrate reopened the proceeding and took the Commissioner's report on record.

5. Sri. R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under Section 14 of 2002 Act was conducted in an illegal manner. No steps were taken by the Advocate Commissioner to submit his report and the proceedings came to be dropped on 4.3.2020. Thereafter, without jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate recalled the order and accepted the report in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Conduct of the respondent-Bank in taking possession of the secured asset without notice or reference to the aforesaid proceeding was withou