Debangsu Basak, J.

The challenges in the writ petition are the actions of the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate in their exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

The Respondent No. 4 passed an Order on December 19, 2012 in presence of the parties directing physical possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner to be taken and providing police assistance for taking over of physical possession. The petitioner claimed that, an Additional District Magistrate was not the District Magistrate contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A District Magistrate cannot delegate his powers. The petitioner contrasted the unamended Section 14 with that of the amended Section 14 particularly Sub-Section (1A) thereof introduced subsequently to submit that, it was never the intention of the legislature to allow a District Magistrate to delegate his powers of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to any other authority in its unamended version. If that was the intention, the subsequent addition of Sub-Section (1A) to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not necessary. That the legislature amended Section 14 to introduce Sub-Section (1A) to Section 14 amply demonstrated, according to the petitioner, the fact that, in the unamended version an Additional District Magistrate could not exercise power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the District Magistrate could not have delegated any of his powers.

That apart, the petitioner relied on All India Reporter 1965 Supreme Court page 1619 (Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors.) and submitted that, an Additional District Magistrate cannot be a District Magistrate.

The petitioner relied upon a judgment of the High Court dated February 24, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 2545 (W) of 2014 (Pratima Roy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) where it was held that, the District Magistrate in terms of the statutory mandate of Section 14 must himself take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto.

The bank opposed the writ petition. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that, the bank having taken a measure under Section 13(4) and having applied under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases page 110 (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.) and 2011 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 782 (Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) the remedy of the petitioner was by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. An appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was a statutory remedy and must be exhausted by the petitioner before moving this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bank also relied upon All India Reporter 2011 Calcutta page 45 (Harun Ali Mallick v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submitted that, a District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 included an Additional District Magistrate and that, the order of the Respondent No. 4 did not suffer any infirmity on such accord.

The bank also relied upon All India Reporter 2010 Bombay page 53 (M/s. Puran Maharashtra Automobiles, Aurangabad & Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad & Ors.) for the proposition that, the District Magistrate could delegate powers to the Additional District Magistrate.

In course of hearing of the writ petition the bank handed over its request for police help dated February 15, 2002 addressed to the District Magistrate.

The authorized officer of the bank approached the District Magistrate, Bankura by a letter dated February 15, 2012 requesting the District Magistrate, Bankura for order to secure possession of the secured assets. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the letter dated February 15, 2012 of the bank in this regard were relevant.

“9. That therefore, t