B.P. Colabawalla, J.

1. By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the orders passed by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under the provisions of section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “SARFAESI Act”).

2. In all these Petitions, the issue raised before us is that all these orders passed under section 14 by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, are a nullity on the ground that he had no authority and/or power to pass the impugned orders. In other words, it is the contention of the Petitioners in all these Petitions, that an Application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be made only to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and therefore, the orders passed by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are bad in law and ought to be set aside by us, in our extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since this is the only point canvassed and which requiresour consideration, we are not setting out the facts in each of the above Writ Petitions. For