ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.01.2014 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the application u/S 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2 . Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of banking. Respondent no. 2 to 9 have availed credit facility to the tune of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- on equitable mortgage/security of Plot No. 54, Padmavati Colony, Indore and House alongwith Plot No. 426/R, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Indore from the petitioner/bank. The account of the respondents no. 2 to 9 was classified as Non Performing Asset (for short 'NPA') due to defaulted repayment of loan as per the terms and conditions. Notice u/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were served upon the respondents. Petitioner filed application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondent No.1/Additional District Magistrate, Indore for taking possession of the properties in question from the respondents no.2 to 9. The respondent no.1 instead of assisting the petitioner to take possession of the mortgaged properties had dismissed the application of the petitioner for want of jurisdiction and relegated the him to approach the DRT, Jabalpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 failed to consider that the petitioner company is a secured creditor and the properties in question are secured by way of mortgage. The respondent no.1 has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act while rejecting application u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act by holding that the same is out of his jurisdiction. However, powers and role of District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate have been clearly stated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act . In fact, the respondent no.1 ought to have considered only two aspects:

(i) Determine whether the secured assets fall within its territorial jurisdiction? (ii) Whether notice u/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been furnished or not?

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Ltd. Vs. Additional District Magistrate and Others [2018(3) MPLJ 123] wherein, in para 20 it is held that :

20. "It has been held that the District Magistrate has to consider only two aspects. He has to first determine whether the secured asset falls within his territorial jurisdiction and secondly whether the notice under Section 13(2) has been furnished or not and no adjudication has been contemplated at that stage."

5. It is further submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal and against the principles of law. Hence, the same be set aside and respondent no.1 be directed to assist the petitioner in taking possession of the secured assets in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that petition may be disposed of with direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the application filed u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a time bound period.

7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Before adverting to the relief sought in the petition, it is apt to go through the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which are reproduced below for convenience:

"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 contr