A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P14, an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, dismissing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to implement Ext.P5 by directing the respondent 3 and 4 to remove respondents 1 and 2 from the secured asset of the Bank and hand over vacant possession of the same to the petitioner.

2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner Bank had taken proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 under the SARFAESI Act, when they committed default in payment of the dues. According to the Bank, symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken by affixture of notice, as evident from Ext.P2 dated 14.12.2009.

3. Though respondents 1 and 2 approached this Court challenging the sale notice published by the petitioner, this Court granted instalment facility to respondents 1 and 2 to repay the loan amount in instalments since respondents 1 and 2 committed default. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act and as per order dated 31.10.2013, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the secured assets and submit a report. Ext.P5 is the said order. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P5, possession was taken by the Advocate Commissioner and it was handed over to the petitioner Bank. Bank also had posted a security guard in the aforesaid property. Ext.P6 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 13.5.2013 and an inventory was taken and panchanama was prepared and the matter was closed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as per order dated 13.5.2014. According to the Bank, physical possession was taken on 23.4.2014.

4. It is submitted that on the very same day, the security guard engaged by the Bank reported that the locks and seal were broken and a complaint was filed before the police. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed W.P.(C) No.9377 of 2014 and an interim stay was obtained for three months. Ext.P10 is the order. Pursuant to the stay order, respondents 1 and 2 forcefully entered into the property, threatening the security personnel and showing the stay order obtained from the Court and trespassed into the building and occupied the same. Though a complaint has been given to the police, no action has been taken in the matter. On 20.6.2014, W.P.(C) No.9377 of 2014 had been dismissed. Thereafter, the Bank filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for re-opening the petition and to issue directions to the Superintendent of Police for extending necessary police protection. But the same was dismissed by Ext.P14. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application filed for re-opening the matter under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that respondents 1 and 2 remained in possession of the property and if at all the petitioner wants to dispossess respondents 1 and 2, the remedy is to approach the Civil Court and cannot have a second right to invoke Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the possession had already been taken in terms of Ext.P5, which is evident from the Advocate Commissioner's report Ext.P6. Subsequently, if they trespassed into the property, the police authorities are bound to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and respondents 1 and 2 are evicted from the said premises. Petitioner submits that when the complaint was given in terms of Ext.P11, no action had been taken by the police.

7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, I am of the view that this is a typical case by which the rule of law has been completely negated by the action of respondents 1