JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. On 31.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“Heard Shri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“(i) issue an appropriate writ order or direction of suitable nature, commanding the respondent Authority, the Additional District Magistrate (Fin and Rev), Gautam Budh Nagar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Gautam Budh Nagar to complete the process of physical possession of the immovable secured asset to the petitioner situated at House No. C-50, Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar UP 201001 as per the provisions under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 in compliance of the order dated 07.10.2016 passed under Section 14(1) of the Act, 2002 by the Competent Authority under the Act 2002.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction of suitable nature, commanding the respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 to ensure actual physical possession of the immovable mortgaged property/secured asset to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without requiring to deposit amount for providing police force within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent authorities to extent all administrative/police assistance in completing the process of physical possession of the immovable property/secured assets to the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than five years have been passed since the order under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was passed yet the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have not yet given physical possession of the mortgaged property.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted 10 days' time to a counter affidavit.

Petitioner shall have three days, thereafter, to file a rejoinder affidavit.

Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on 15.4.2022.”

3. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the secured creditor. An order dated 07.10.2016 under Section 14(1) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’) was passed by the respondent No.2. Despite repeated request of the petitioner, the State-respondents have not given physical possession of the secured asset in question to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In paragraphs 12 and 17 of the counter affidavit, the respondents No.2 and 3, i.e. the Additional District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, have stated as under:

“12. That in reply to the contents of paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the writ petition it is stated that the Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 07.10.2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA No. 662 of 2016. The aforesaid SA was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2022. It is further submitted that the necessary action for handing over the possession has to be taken at the level of the Respondent no.4. It is respectfully submitted that as per the procedure the petitioner had to coordinate with the Respondent No. 4 for the compliance of order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the answering Respondent No. 2. From the pleading it is evident that the petitioner at no point of time informed the answering respondents that the order dated 07.10.2016 has not been complied with. It is also relevant to state that as per the pleading itself, the matter remained pending before DRT till 03.01.2022, hence, therefore, the possession could not have been handed over to