ORDER :

1. The limited relief that petitioner seeks for in the present writ petition is for appropriate direction to the respondent no. 1 for an early disposal of the proceedings under Section 14 filed by the petitioner under the Sarfaesi Act of 2002.

2. According to the petitioner, they after culmination of the Section 13 proceedings has filed an application under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 2002 before the respondent no. 1 on 17.10.2022. However, though more than 3 months have lapsed, there is no development on the said application whereas under the Act of 2002 the application under Section 14 has to be decided by the District Magistrate within an outer limit of 60 days.

3. 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 Limited 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. The Bombay High Court in a judgment reported as Trade Well vs. Indian Bank, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2544 (Bom.) has held that the District Magistrate is not required to give notice either to the borrower or to the third party. He is only to verify from the Bank whether notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued or not. The said judgment has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 620 wherein it was held as under:

“22. However, the Bombay High Court in Trade Well vs. Indian Bank, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2544 (Bom.) opined:

“2 ...CMM/DM acting under Section 14 of the NPA Act is not required to give notice either to the borrower or to the third party.

3. He has to only verify from the bank or financial institution whether notice under Section 13(2) of the NPA Act is given or not and whether the secured assets fall within his jurisdiction. There is no adjudication W.A. No. 784/2018 of any kind at this stage.

4. It is only if the above conditions are not fulfilled that the CMM/DM can refuse to pass an order under Section 14 of the NPA Act by recording t