JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. The petitioner, a Multi-State Co-operative Bank approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers as under :-

(B) By issuing an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction in the like nature, the respondent No.2 be directed to execute the order passed by the respondent No.1 by restituting the possession of the secured asset to the petitioner.

(C) By issuing an appropriate writ or order, it be declared that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have violated the mandate of securitization act and the respondent No. 2 need to honour the order passed by the respondent No.1.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a Multi-State Co-operative Bank registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, and is a ‘Financial Institution’ defined under The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’).

3. The respondent No.4/partnership firm through its partners – respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had obtained the financial assistance/loan facility of Rs. 61,95,000/- from the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 7 and 8 are the guarantors. As per the terms of sanction, the respondent No. 6 secured the loan facility by creating the security interest of the petitionerfinancial institution, over her property, as described in the mortgaged document. The respondent No. 4 defaulted in repayment of loan, consequently the loan account was classified as NPA on 29-06-2019 as per the RBI norms.

4. The petitioner in exercise of statutory right under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, served a demand notice to respondent Nos. 4 to 8, under section 13 (8) of the Act raising demand of Rs.65,93,858.29 in terms of section 13 (2) of the Act. Further measures under section 13(4) of the Act were taken. The symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken on 18-08-2020. The application No. 207/2020 was moved under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act with the District Collector, Jalna. It was allowed vide order dated 28-05-2021. In furtherance of the order dated 21-11-2020, the respondent No. 2 was authorized to hand over the possession of the secured assets to the petitioner. The possession was handed over to the petitioner on 06-08-2022 by adverting to the prescriptions of law. The panchanama to that effect was drawn. The petitioner then deployed security personnel at the site for protection of the secured assets.

5. On 22-08-2022, the sale notice was published as prescribed under Rules of 2002. At this juncture, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and two other men, broke open the shutter lock and unauthorizedly entered the premises and took over forcible possession of the property. The security personnel informed the Branch Manager about forcible entry and illegal activities of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Branch Manager after verifying the factual scenario, approached S.B. Police Station at Jalna and filed a complaint against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The concerned Police took cognizance and registered the F.I.R. No.0714/2022 dated 14- 09-2022 against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and two other for the offences punishable under sections 447, 506 R/W Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner contends that the it tried to desist illegal activities of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, however, the officers of the petitioner-bank were apprehended of false implication in a criminal charge of outraging modesty of the women deployed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at the site. The petitioner represented respondent No. 2 to intervene and set the things right and assist the petitioner to preserve and protect the property. Unfortunately, the respondent No. 2 showed inability to intervene on the ground that he had already executed the order dated 21- 11-2020 as per section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by respondent No.1.

6. In this background, the petitioner seeks to invoke juris