ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P/1) dated 29.02.2020 passed by the District Magistrate Balod, District Balod in the Case No. 11/B-121/2018-19, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the District Magistrate has rejected a claim Application put forth by the Petitioner-Financial Institution under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002. The rejection of the said Application under Section 14 by the District Magistrate has been on the ground that the calculation of interest made by the Petitioner-Bank in the affidavit supported with the Application under Section 14 was in correct. That because of the excessive interest charged, the borrowers have been subjected to great mental agony and also their reputation in the society has been tarnished. That in the given factual backdrop, if the possession is ordered to be given to the Petitioner-Bank, it would call substantial injustice to the borrowers and for all these reasons the Section 14 Application was rejected by the District Magistrate.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondents No. 2 to 4 have taken certain loan from the Petitioner-Bank. The loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs. 30 Lakh, out of 30 Lakh, the Petitioner-Authority has already released an amount of Rs. 20 Lakh on different dates. Meanwhile, however since there was a default on the part the respondents No. 2 to 4, appropriate proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated by the Petitioner-Bank. Subsequent to exhausting of the rights under Section 13, the Petitioner-Bank moved an Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate District Balod for an appropriate order for taking over the possession of the mortgage property. The said Application was filed as early as in the year 2018. Vide the impugned order (Annexure P/1), the same has been rejected. The ground of rejection is already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

4. The contention of the Learned Counsel for petitioner was that under no circumstances could the District Magistrate have converted itself into an Adjudicatory Agency and have adjudicated upon the Application and the issues involved in the said Application between the Petitioner-Bank and the Respondents No. 2 to 4 borrowers.

5. It was the further contention of the counsel for petitioner that the plain reading of the impugned order itself would show that the District Magistrate has decided the application in excess of his jurisdiction while entertaining the Application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, if at all, if there would have been any lacuna and laches that the District Magistrate had detected in the Application or in the supported affidavit, the District Magistrate could have simply called upon the petitioner to improve upon the same and to satisfy the District Magistrate in-respect-of those lacuna and short-comings. Instead the District Magistrate has proceeded to decide the matter and have entered into the disputed questions of facts, which the District Magistrate otherwise under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not empowered to venture upon.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 4 however opposing the petition submits that, it is a case where the District Magistrate infact has the power to be satisfied on the Application and the affidavit filed under Section 14 and only thereafter could he have proceeded further and on verification when the District Magistrate found that the information provided in the affidavit was not satisfactory, he had no other option but to reject the Application under Section 14. Therefore, he has not committed any illegality or error in law.

7. The State Counsel on the other hand further justifying the action on the part of the respondents, the District Magistrate submits that it is a case where there were many deficiencies and irregularities detected by the District Magistrate in the Application and the affidavit that the Ban