Point of Law: Remedy under Section 14 of the Act is not rendered redundant if the District Magistrate is unable to handover the possession. The District Magistrate will still be enjoined upon, the duty to facilitate delivery of possession at the earliest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. When the case was listed on 10.02.2022, the following order was passed:

“Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been filed by the bank praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 1/District Magistrate, Maharajganj to decide the application dated 15.04.2017 bearing Case No. 289 of 2017 and computerised Case No. D-201705470289 titled as Manager Dena bank Gorakhpur vs. Maya Devi and Others preferred by the petitioner bank, U/Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as the statutory time period has elapsed much back.

(ii) Issue in favour of the petitioner any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.”

In Writ (C) No. 7126 of 2021, Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) vs. State of U.P. and Others, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 24.08.2021:

“Heard Shri Habib Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed by the Bank seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus for timely conclusion of the proceedings under Section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as an ‘SARFAESI Act’) being Case No. 3878 of 2018 (Allahabad Bank vs. Sushmita Srivastava and Others).

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act had been concluded on 24.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application dated 23.01.2018 under Section 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to secure the physical possession of the secured asset, but the same has remained pending for more than three and a half years. He further submits that the first proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act clearly provides a time period of 30 days for concluding those proceedings. In any case, the second proviso thereto provides for an extension of that time period to 60 days, for reasons recorded in writing. That being the clear mandate of the law, all efforts should be made by the concerned to ensure strict compliance, so that the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act are concluded, within a period of 60 days from the date of filing of such application.

While the Act requires recording of reasons beyond delay of 30 days, we feel that in the event of delay beyond 60 days, the matter should be monitored by the concerned District Magistrate. The reasons for delay should be regularly examined and necessary directions issued in writing to ensure full/effective compliance of the law.

The Apex Court in C. Bright vs. The District Collector and Others, 2020 AIR SC 5747 has held as under:

“20. The Act was enacted to provide a machinery for empowering banks and financial institutions, so that they may have the power to take possession of secured assets and to sell them. The DRT Act was first enacted to streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous results. Therefore, the Act in question was enacted. This Court in Mardia Chemical, Transcore and Hindon Forge Private Limited has held that the purpose of the Act pertains to the speedy recovery of dues, by banks and financial institutions. The true intention of the Legislature is a determining factor herein. Keeping the objective of the Act in mind, the time limit to take action by the District Magistrate has been fixed to impress upon the authority to take possession of the