Proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, are ministerial in nature, requiring no notice to borrowers, aimed at expediting recovery processes.

1. Heard.

2. Yet another petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by a Bank seeking disposal of its application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (the Act, 2002) which has remained pending before the District Magistrate, Amethi since 2022. Every day such petitions are filed before this Court where Banks or financial institutions seek disposal of their applications filed under S.14 of the Act, 2002 which have remained pending for long. The very purpose of having a separate procedure for recovery of loan etc. under the Act, 2002 and providing a separate forum for adjudication of disputes was that such matters were to be expeditiously decided. Taking of possession under S.14 of the Act, 2002 is a measure referable to S.13(4) of the Act, 2002 ( 2011 (2) SCC 782 : (2011 (3) AIR Jhar R 273 (SC)) ' Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others v. State of Maharastra and Ors. '; 2004 (4) SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2371 ' Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Ors. '; 2013 (9) SCC 620 ' Standard Chartered Bank v. Noble Kumar and Ors. '), but if applications under S.14 of the Act, 2002 remain pending for long without there being any impediment in their disposal then it will create unimaginable consequences and unnecessary complications so far as recovery of loan etc. is concerned as, often the Bank puts the secured asset to auction without having actual physical possession i.e. based on symbolic possession, but, in the absence of actual physical possession, the auction purchaser and the Bank both are put in an unenviable position leading to further litigation.

3. On being asked, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submitted on the basis of instruction provided by the District Magistrate that on 16.04.2022, notices were issued to the borrower who filed his objections on 10.06.2022. Thereafter, several dates have been fixed. Five dates were fixed till 01.02.2023 but hearing could not take place on account of absence of advocates. Likewise, twenty three dates have been fixed since 02.06.2023 till 28.09.2024 but hearing could not take place in the absence of advocates.

4. We are surprised at the response of District Magistrate, Amethi. He is proceeding with the matter as if he is hearing a suit on the revenue side. Proceedings under S.14 of the Act, 2002 are not such proceedings where notices are required to be issued to the borrowers or extensive hearing is to take place so as to decide a dispute. It does not involve adjudication of any dispute not even between the secured creditor and the borrower.

5. It appears that the District Magistrates who are seized with such matters are unaware of the scope of proceedings under S.14 of the Act, 2002. This appears to be one of the reasons for pendency of the matter.

6. The procedure to be followed is given in S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which reads as under: -

"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. - (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured a