The Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that both the District Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14. The Court also emphasized the need for timely action by the authorities and the officer deputed to execute the order.

ORDER

Jaswant Singh, J. - The secured creditor is before this Court challenging the order dated 9th of March, 2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner-Finance Company under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short referred to as "the SARFAESI Act").

2. The brief facts are that M/s. Ali Agency, a partnership farm (O.P. No.1) had been sanctioned and disbursed a loan amount of Rs.2,81,25,000/- (Rupees two croreeighty-one lakhs and twenty-five thousand only) by the Petitioner. The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are the partners of the Opposite Party No.1, and also co-borrowers. The loan was secured by mortgaging a residential property owned by Opposite Party No.3. Due to lack of financial discipline, the loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 4th October, 2017. A demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 6th November, 2017 seeking to recall outstanding amount of Rs.2,85,04,685/- (Rupees two crore eighty-five lakh four thousand six hundred eighty-five only) due as on 6th of November, 2017. Symbolic possession of the mortgaged property was assumed vide Possession Notice dated 21st February, 2018 issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act.

3. The Petitioner-secured creditor filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate (DM), Cuttack in April, 2018 seeking providing of official assistance for taking over actual physical possession of the secured asset-mortgaged residential property. Since the same was not decided within the stipulated time, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of vide order dated 11th December, 2018 directing the District Magistrate (DM), Cuttack to dispose of the application within a period of six months.

4. The District Magistrate (DM), Cuttack vide order dated 19th of June, 2019 decided the application on merits of the case, while rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner-Finance Company. The Petitioner was constrained to file W.P.(C) No. 16549 of 2019 assailing the aforesaid order dated 19th of June, 2019 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th of September, 2019 directing the District Magistrate, Cuttack to decide the application, within the scope of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and after giving opportunity to the parties concerned, within the statutory period.

5. As the directions were not complied with by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, the Petitioner was constrained to file a CONTC before this Court on 4th of September, 2020 which is stated to be pending. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a fresh application on 7th September, 2020 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack who has vide the impugned order dated 9th September, 2020 rejected the application on the ground that similar application was pending before the District Magistrate, Cuttack. Consequently, the Petitioner withdrew its application pending before the District Magistrate, Cuttack with liberty to file a fresh one, if so required. The District Magistrate, Cuttack vide order dated 23rd December, 2020 permitted the withdrawal but without liberty as prayed for.

6. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a fresh application along with the withdrawal order on 25th January, 2021 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack.

7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack vide its impugned order dated 9th of March, 2021 has once again rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the process of consideration of an application submitted by the secured creditor under Section 14 before the Magistrate does not involve any adjudicatory mechanism and is purely administrative in na