V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Challenging the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), the borrower and guarantors have come up with the above Writ Petition.

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner company was granted credit facilities by the 1st respondent bank to the tune of nearly Rs.20.00 Crores. The credit facilities were secured by the factory building as well as other immovable properties. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein stood as guarantors for the due repayment of the loan.

4. Due to the defaults committed by the petitioners, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset on 30.06.2017.

5. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 01.07.2017 was issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Since the petitioners failed to respond to the demand notice, a possession notice dated 14.11.2018 was issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act.

6. It appears that the petitioners responded to the possession notice by offering a One-Time Settlement (OTS) through their letter, dated 07.02.2019. But, the bank rejected the offer by their reply dated 20.02.2019, on the ground that the amount indicated therein was not sufficient.

7. In the meantime, the Authorized Officer of the bank filed an application in Criminal M.P. No.8549 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, under Section 14 of the Act for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the property. The Court passed an order, dated 05.01.2019, appointing the 2nd respondent in this writ petition as the Advocate Commissioner, to take over possession. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petition.

8. The main contention of Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the amendment to Section 14 of the Act under the Amendment Act, 2016, any application by the secured creditor should be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor, declaring that-

“(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;

(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;

(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above;

(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;

(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a nonperforming asset;

(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower;

(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;

(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act;

(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with:

9. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act obliges the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to satisfy himself as to the contents of the affi