Non-compliance with statutory orders under the SARFAESI Act warrants systemic intervention and binding guidelines for timely enforcement by administrative officers.

ORDER :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company engaged in the business of extending various categories of loans to its borrowers, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing Respondent No. 1, the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar of Deglur, to forthwith take physical possession of the secured asset being Milkat No. 824 situated at Post Deglur, Taluka Deglur, District Nanded, in pursuance of an order dated 15^th November 2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 14 of the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that Respondent No. 1 has acted in brazen disregard of the statutory mandate contained in the SARFAESI Act and has consciously failed to implement a binding directive issued by his superior authority. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for appointment of a Court Commissioner to take possession of the property.

2. The factual canvas is neither complex nor in dispute. The borrower of the petitioner availed a loan facility by executing a loan agreement and security documents, creating a mortgage in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property. Upon the borrower’s failure to service the loan and the consequent classification of the account as a Non-Performing Asset, the petitioner invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. After issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) and in order to secure physical possession of the mortgaged property, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 14 of the Act. Upon due satisfaction of the statutory requirements, the District Magistrate, by a reasoned order dated 15 November 2022, directed the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Deglur, to take possession of the property and to deliver the same to the authorized officer of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts, and the record bears out, that despite the clear and binding nature of the District Magistrate’s directive, Respondent No. 1 has not taken a single step towards its implementation. No possession notice has been issued; no date or time has been fixed for the execution of the order; no communication has been made to the petitioner; and no justification, statutory or otherwise, has been offered. The petitioner’s officers have visited the office of Respondent No. 1 repeatedly and have addressed written representations requesting compliance. These efforts have, however, met with complete silence. In these circumstances, the petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 has deliberately avoided discharge of his statutory obligation, acted in conscious disregard of the directions of his superior authority, and is indirectly enabling the borrower by protracting the process of taking possession. Even a further representation made by the petitioner seeking action for non-compliance has not evoked any response.

3. In support of the petition, reliance has been placed upon the common order of this Court dated 25^th February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 2625 of 2025 (Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), wherein this Court, while dealing with an identical grievance, directed the Collector and the concerned Tahsildars to execute Section 14 orders expeditiously unless interdicted by a competent Court.

4. The learned AGP, appearing for the State, states that Respondent No. 1 will complete the process within six weeks.

5. In the ordinary cou