JUDGMENT

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. - By this appeal, the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2022 passed in W.P.A. No 28021 of 2014 (Joy Kali Industries Pvt. Ltd. -versus- Union of Indian and Others) has been questioned by the appellant/writ petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner is a company registered under The Companies Act, 1956. The appellant had taken a loan from the respondent no. 2, i.e., United Bank of India now Punjab National Bank.

3. On 05.04.2007 the respondent no.4 herein the Branch Manager of the said Bank communicated to the appellant regarding the modified terms of compromise settlement of the loan amount. Subsequently, the loan was taken over by AEREC (India) Ltd. being the respondent No. 12 from the respondent No. 2. As the compromise failed, on 10.01.2021, AEREC (India) Ltd. being the respondent no. 12 took physical possession of the assets of the appellant with the help of the police assistance of Memari Police Station owing to the default in making payment of the loan. The entire incident took place in the presence of the Executive Magistrate being the respondent no. 9 in terms of the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act, 2002, by the District Magistrate, Purba Burdwan.

4. The order passed by the District Magistrate being the respondent No. 5 for taking possession of the assets of the appellant in presence of the Executive Magistrate, being the respondent No.9 is challenged by the appellant before the Learned Single Judge of this Court.

5. The Learned Single Judge upon having carefully considered the contentions and the arguments of the counsels for respective parties held that 'the issue as to whether the Executive Magistrate could be delegated the powers of the District Magistrate under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 is academic in nature since sub-section (2) of section 14 has been amended' and dismissed the writ petition.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. Hence, the question before this Hon'ble Court is:

I. Whether the impugned memo issued by the District Magistrate, being the respondent no.5 under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 delegating his powers to the Executive Magistrate herein the respondent No.9 for taking possession of the assets of the appellant by the respondent no. 12 and the order of the Executive Magistrate for taking possession of the assets of the appellant is violative of the rule of law, illegal and invalid?

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relying on an unreported judgement dated 24th July, 2014, passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Swastyan Agro Industries and Anr. -vs- Union of India and Ors. [W.P. No. 379 (W) of 2013] submits that the Executive Magistrate was not the District Magistrate as contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A District Magistrate cannot delegate his powers to an Executive Magistrate. Thus, the order of the District Magistrate delegating his powers to the Executive Magistrate for taking possession of the assets of the appellant is illegal and prays for quashing of the orders of both the District Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate, to return the assets and to restore the physical possession of such assets to the appellant.

8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused of the records of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. In M/s R. D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 921, Supreme Court held that the terms District Magistrate (DM), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The expression 'District Magistrate' and the 'Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include