The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-adjudicatory nature of the process under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the availability of an alternative remedy under section 17, and the overriding effect of the Act over other laws.

Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the Petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders u/s 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the Petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magistrates asking them to dispose of the said applications expeditiously. The said petition was, therefore, permitted to be converted into public interest litigation and has been renumbered as Public Interest Litigation No. 24 of 2011.

2. By amending the petition, the Petitioners have added Union of India through the District Magistrate, Daman & Diu and State Maharashtra as Respondents 2 and 3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited and Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited had filed intervention applications. Their intervention was granted by this Court and pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, they have been brought on record as Respondents 4 to 6 respectively. The prayer clause has been suitably amended. We must, at the outset, note that though at first blush, it appears that through this petition, the banks and financial institutions are trying to serve their personal interest as they are seeking possession of secured assets, we cannot lose sight of the fact that ultimately, the banks and financial institutions deal with public money and it is in the interest of general public to see that they take possession of the secured assets and recover money advanced by them where the borrower is under liability and his account has become nonperforming. If any guidelines are issued, that purpose would be served. The petition is, therefore, perfectly maintainable as a public interest litigation.

3. Before we go to the relevant judgments, it is necessary to state that admittedly, there is huge pendency of applications filed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act in some districts. The data collected by the Petitioners, which covers the period from 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2010, has not been disputed by the State. The maximum number of applications are pending in Mumbai, Pune and Thane. We are informed that disposal of such applications take excessively long time.

4. Mr. Ardeshir, learned Counsel for Respondent 3 and Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 have supported Ms. Mohite Dere, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Counsel submitted that in Transcore Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2007 SC 712, the Supreme Court has made the scope of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, clear. The Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) was a party, has in Trade Well, a Proprietorship firm and Mr. Suniel K. Mehta, Proprietor of Trade Well Vs. Indian Bank and The State of Maharashtra, (2007) CriLJ 2544, after following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Transcore and in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others Etc. Etc., AIR 2004 SC 2371, laid down certain guidelines which the District Magistrates (for short, "the DMs") and Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (for short, "the CMMs") are expected to follow while disposing of applications u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Transcore has been reiterated by it in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3413 and in Kanaiyal