District Magistrate's role under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely administrative with no adjudicatory powers, upholding the law's constitutionality and confirming the permissibility of judicial review in specific circumstances.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have called in question legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Raipur under S.14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') by which it has been directed to take physical possession of the subject land from the petitioners.

2. Necessary facts needed to adjudicate the dispute to correct the order dated 20-3-2017 state as under: -
2.1. Respondent No.3 being a financial institution took an action under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against which the petitioners have preferred Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur in which interim order dated 28-3-2017 has been passed. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has filed an application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Raipur along with an affidavit of Mr. Mahesh Parashar, authorized officer, in which the petitioners were noticed and ultimately, time up to 15-3-2017 was granted and the case was fixed on 20-3-2017 and on 20-3-2017, the impugned order was passed. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20-3 - 2017, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners herein principally on the ground that the District Magistrate has failed to satisfy himself about the contents of the affidavit for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets. An application for dismissal of writ petition on the ground of maintainability of writ petition has been filed by respondent No.3.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the learned District Magistrate is absolutely unjustified in granting application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act without being satisfying the nine point requirements under S.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, as required under the second proviso to S.14(1) and passed the impugned order without recording its satisfaction for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets. The order passed by the learned District Magistrate runs contrary to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar and others, 2013 (9) SCC 620 , and Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others, 2014 (6) SCC 1 . Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would submit at the outset that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable on the ground that against the order taking symbolic possession under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have already approached the DRT and the DRT has already taken cognizance of the matter and the grounds which have been taken herein had already been taken in the representation filed by the petitioners under S.13(3). The DRT has already passed interim order on 28-3-2017 and it has also been modified on 15-5-2017 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (DRAT) directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.2 crores which has not been complied and therefore the petitioners can very well approach the DRT in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (2) SCC 782 : 2011 AIR SCW 1194. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank (supra) to support his submission. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioners has already been disposed by Annexure P - 4 by respondent No.3 and nine points affidavit as required under