JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.09.2019, contained in memo dated 19.09.2019, passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder officers and police force have been deputed to seize the property of the petitioner and handover the possession of the same to the respondent Bank as also for quashing the letter dated 21.09.2019 issued by the Authorized Officer of the respondent Bank, by which intimation has been given to take possession of the assets of the petitioners.

3. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners are that the petitioner no. 2 is one of the Director of the petitioner no. 1 and he had extended his personal guarantee to obtain term loan and Cash Credit loan from the respondent bank. The bank had earlier sanctioned term loan to the tune of Rs. 2.66 crores with interest @ 12.5 % per annum repayable in 72 monthly installments, commencing from the month of July, 2016 onwards. Thereafter, cash credit loan to the tune of Rs. 1.40 crores was sanctioned by the bank. It is the case of the petitioners that on account of unforeseen events, the rice mill of the petitioners could not ever operate in full swing resulting in the respondent bank issuing a demand notice dated 01.08.2017 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act') to the petitioners and a demand of a sum of Rs. 3,97,55,305/- was made whereupon the petitioners had replied stating therein that the entire loan amount would be cleared within a period of one year. The petitioners had also filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid demand notice dated 01.08.2017 bearing CWJCNo. 14252 of 2017, however, the same had stood dismissed inasmuch as the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, before whom also the petitioners had challenged the aforesaid notice dated 01.08.2017, by way of S.A. No. 88 of 2018, though initially by an order dated 16.11.2018, had directed the parties to maintain status quo upon payment of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs, but then by a judgment dated 20.12.2018, had dismissed the said S.A. No. 88 of 2018. Thereafter, the respondent Bank had filed OANo. 91 of 2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for recovery of the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 4,32,30,526/- which was disposed off by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal by an order dated 05.09.2019 with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 4,32,30,526/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum. Thereafter, on 26.09.2019, the Executive Magistrate and the local police, along with the officials of the respondent Bank had taken possession of the entire movable and immovable properties, including the mortgaged assets of the borrowers and a notice was put upon the house and mill of the petitioners regarding the property having been taken over by the Authorized Officer of the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act under Section 14 read with Rule 8 and upon enquiry the local administration had handed over the order dated18/19.09.2019, by which direction had been issued to take over possession of the entire movable and immovable properties of the borrowers.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri P.K. Shahi has assailed the aforesaid order dated 18/19.09.2019 on the ground that from the order itself it is apparent that the same has been passed in light of the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 14252 of 2017 by this Court, however, there is no such direction of this Court. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would show that the District Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order dated 18/19.09.2019 in a perfunctory manner without following the procedure spelt the