( 1 ) IN light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, the petition is taken up for final hearing. RULE. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties are directed to waive service.

( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

"8. On the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that: (A) Be pleased to admit the present petition for final disposal at admission stage. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara -respondent No. 3 herein MAG. Vashi no. 776 of 2006 dated 28. 6. 2006 and to pass further order directing respondent No. 3 to pass fresh decision on the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to furnish some securities for dues of the bank before this Hon'ble Court which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and grant appropriate interim relief looking to the special facts and circumstances of the present case and nature of the petition. (D) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. "

( 3 ) THE facts are not disputed at least in so far as the present proceedings are concerned. The petitioner-Bank advanced loan on 10. 11. 2000 to the tune of: rs. 15,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As the liability was not discharged and the outstanding dues had swelled to rs. 17,65,501/-, on 28. 03. 2003 proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act)were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation act by the petitioner-Bank. It is the say of the petitioner-Bank that on 14. 10. 2003 the petitioner-Bank sought to recover possession from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but because of obstruction by the said respondents, on 30. 11. 2005 the petitioner moved District Magistrate and Collector, vadodara under Section 14 of the securitisation Act. On 28. 06. 2006, respondent No. 3 i. e. the District Magistrate and Collector, Vadodara rejected the application under Section 14 of the securitisation Act. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner-Bank in this petition.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

( 5 ) SECTION 14 of the Securitisation Act reads as under:

"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or district Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall b