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 Ac