Koshy, J.

In all these cases, the main point argued by the petitioners is that Chief Judicial Magistrate is not vested with the power and jurisdiction to deal with application under section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) (in short `the Securitisation Act). In some of the writ petitions, constitutional validity of section 14 of the Securitisation Act was also challenged, but, no arguments were raised regarding the same. In two writ petitions, it was also contended that Chief Judicial Magistrate, even if has jurisdiction, cannot depute a Commissioner for taking possession of the secured assets. We note that the Honble Supreme Court has in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and others (AIR 2004 SC 237) upheld the validity of the provisions of the Securitisation Act except sub.section 2 of section 17 which was declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said sub-section originally provided deposit of seventy five per cent of the amount claimed before entertaining an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Securitisation Act. Thereafter, the Act was amended by Amendment Act 30 of 2004 and requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount claimed was deleted. In view of the above, it is not possible for the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity of the section . Before answering the question whether Chief Judicial Magistrate has got power under section 14, we may consider the scope of section 14 of the Securitisation Act.

2. Section 14 of the Securitisation Act reads as follows:

"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset 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 or 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 be called in question in any court or before any authority."

A plain reading of the above section shows that it is a procedural section wherein the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, shall render assistance to take possession of secured assets or documents relating to the assets and forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. Under sub-section (2) of section 14, the authority is empowered to take such steps and use such force, as may be necessary, for taking possession of the secured assets and the documents relating thereto. Sub-section (3) of section 14 further provides that such act of the authority is protected and the action shall not be questioned in any court or before any authority. As pointed out by the petitioners, a trial or adjudication of dispute is not contemplated by the Magistrate under the above section. Of course, Magistrate can consider whether secured property is identifiable and whether 60 days notice was issued under section