JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstitution of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2002 Act’). The matter has come up before this Court for consideration of the petitioners’ prayer for an ad interim prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10911/2021, in which the Supreme Court observed that with a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, that is, dearth of appointees to the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs), for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, the concerned High Courts were requested to entertain matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India till further orders. It was further observed that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunal(s) by the High Courts.

2. Learned counsel then cites a Single Judge decision reported at AIR 2016 Cal 100 [Dimension Realtors Private Limited and another Vs. The District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas and others] in support of the proposition that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against anything done or not done under Section 14 of the 2002 Act is maintainable; but such a petition should, ordinarily, not be received to be assessed on merits if filed by a person, other than the secured creditor, who claims to be affected or likely to be affected thereby. As a corollary, it was held, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained on merits against an order passed or any act done under Section 14 of the Act, if the complaint pertains to the lack of jurisdiction (primarily, on territorial considerations) or when the absurdity of that which is complained against is demonstrable.

3. Learned counsel next cites Krishna Builders and Developers Vs. Shriram Housing Finance Limited, reported at 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 342, where Dimension Realtors (supra) was followed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon (2014) 6 SCC 1 [Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others] in support of the proposition that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority executing the power of any other authority or court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution.

5. Learned counsel next cites another Single Judge decision of this Court reported at AIR 2015 Cal 306 [Sri Jawahar Singh Vs. The United Bank of India and others] where it was held, inter alia, that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority executing power of any other authority or court will not be a bar for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution. It was further held that the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate under Section 14 of the 2002 Act can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by any aggrieved party and if such a challenge is made, the High Court can examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with the settled principles of law. It was further reiterated that the remedy available under Section 17 of the 2002 Act has to be regarded illusory for pre-mortgage lessees for the reason that even though sufficient ground may have been made out for the Tribunal to direct restoration of possession with the secured asset, such restoration could only be in favour of t