The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate must personally exercise the powers under S.14 of the Securitisation Act, as these powers cannot be delegated.

1. While proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002, the first respondent - Bank filed an application under S.14 of the Act before the District Magistrate seeking assistance to recover physical possession of the secured assets in question. The application was decided by the Additional District Magistrate and the order dated 22nd May, 2015 which culminated, is one impugned in this petition.

2. The short but succinct question is whether the Additional District Magistrate was competent authority who could exercise the powers and jurisdiction to act under S.14 of the Act and decide the application.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for learned advocate Mr. Anip Gandhi for the first respondent. Though served with the notice, none appeared for second, third and fourth respondent.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that language of the Section is clear and that no other authority except the District Magistrate himself could derive and exercise the power thereunder. He relied on the observations from the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1969 SC 483 ) to submit that District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate were the distinct authorities. He next relied on decision of the Division Bench in Shivam Water Treaters P. Ltd. v. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India being Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2013 to submit that the power was confided on the District Magistrate 'himself'. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta submitted that no illegality was committed if the Additional District Magistrate decided the application and granted assistance to the Bank to physically recover the property. He submitted that large amount is due and the challenge would only prolong the proceedings by which the borrower would be benefited.

5. In order to address the question, at the outset, provision of S.14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 may be noticed. The Section provides about the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. Extracting as relevant, the whole provision, S.14 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 asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or it any of the secured asset 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 asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him -
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.
Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that -
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the