ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Dharmadhikari, J:- 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of respondent no.1/Addnl District Magistrate in not considering the objections raised by the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners who are the borrowers have availed loan facility from the respondent no.2/bank on equitable mortgage of Plot No. 53, East Part, Shriramnagar Colony Village Gujarkhedia, Mhowgaon(referred to as "property in question" hereinafter). Thereafter, petitioners' accounts were classified as NPA. The respondent No.1/Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioners under section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter filed application before the respondent No.1 u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Additional District Magistrate, Indore/respondent No.1 directed the petitioners to personally remain present before him alongwith reply and necessary documents vide order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) . After receipt of the said order, petitioners have submitted their objections. It is the apprehension of petitioners that without considering the said objections, respondent no.1 will proceed to decide the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for handing over the physical possession of the property in question to the respondent No.2/bank. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that entire proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of SARFAESI Act are illegal and bad in law. Petitioners are remedy less and apprehends dispossession from the property in question without there being any fault on their part. Respondent No.2 without complying with the provisions of 13 of SARFAESI Act has moved before the respondent no.1 by filing an application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Petitioners have submitted objection dated 03.05.2023 wherein it has been stated that respondent no.2/bank had informed the petitioners that their accounts have been classified as NPA. On the basis of said information, petitioners have deposited Rs. 3,49,935 in the account. Respondent No.2/bank assured that the accounts of petitioners will be regularized. However, without issuing notice u/S Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Ac had filed application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has issued notice of personal presence whereby petitioners have submitted their written objections. Hence, respondent No.1 be directed to decide the application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act after considering the objections raised by the petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that petitioners have approached this Court merely on the basis of apprehension as no such order has been annexed with the petition wherein respondent No.1/ADM has proceeded to decide the application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act and petitioners have been directed to hand over the possession of the property in question. Even otherwise, if any such order deciding the application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act is passed, petitioners can very well avail the statutory remedy available under the law by approaching the DRT, Jabalpur u/S 17 of the SARFAESI Act .

5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

6. From the pleadings as well as the arguments , it appears that the said petition has been filed only seeking protection against dispossession, that too merely on apprehension as on perusal of the entire record, we do not find order of the respondent No.1/Addnl District Magistrate deciding the application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act filed by the respondent No.2/Bank. Hence, we find no reason to entertain this petition.

7. The apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited and others v. Umakanta Mohapatra and others [(2019) 13 SCC 497] has held as follows:

"2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by