The need to notice the borrowers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was not necessary or justified.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

10.1 Issue a suitable writ, order or direction to the District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh to decide and dispose of the Revenue Case 53/B-121/Year 2020-21 pending before it, expeditiously, within a prescribed time frame.

10.2 Pass such other consequential Writs, Orders or Directions as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case in the interest of Justice, Equity and Fairplay.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents No. 2 to 4 had taken loan from the petitioner-establishment and there has been a default on the part of the respondents No. 2 to 4 in making the repayment. An appropriate proceeding under the SARFAESI Act has been initiated against the respondents No. 2 to 4. After the culmination of the Section 13 proceedings, an application under Section 14 was filed before the District Magistrate Raipur for appropriate order for taking possession of the secured assets (immovable property). The said application is pending consideration before the District Magistrate Raipur since 22.12.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-establishment referring to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act submits that a proceeding under Section 14 being only of administrative nature, first of all, notices to the respondents No. 2 to 4 were not at all required and secondly, he has contended that under the Statute, Section 14 proceedings by the District Magistrate have to be concluded as far as possible within a period of 30 days. In the instant case, it is well passed over a year that the proceedings are pending before the District Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for an appropriate direction for an early conclusion of the said proceedings.

4. A similar issue came up before this Court for consideration in the case of W.P. (C) No. 766 of 2020 and this Court while deciding the said writ petition had in paragraph 4 and 5 made the following observations:

“4. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent decision passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 245/2020 in the case of DCB Bank Limited vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others decided on 05.02.2020. This Court while deciding the said writ petition in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 has held as under:

“So far as the proceedings drawn by respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act is concerned, particularly on the issue whether notice has to be issued under Section 14 or not, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent Division Bench Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. vs. Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vermalayam decided on 13.07.2018 wherein the Division Bench in very categorical terms in paragraph 27 to 29 have held as under:

“27. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The issue raised was a question of fact as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the W.A. No. 784/2018 property in question on the basis of lease agreement. The said judgment refers to the Supreme Court judgment reported as Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 1 to hold that such question is required to be decided while considering an application under Section 14 of the Act. But, present is not a case where any such question is required to be decided. The property in question is mortgaged in favour of the appellant; therefore, it is a secured asset. In respect of secured assets, the District Magistrate is duty bound to hand over physical possession to the secured creditor in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, such judgment provides no assistance to the argument raised.

28. Coming to the argument that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the writ-petitioners and that the order passed by the District Magistrate violates the principles of natural justice is again not tenable. Th