[2026:RJ-JD:8479]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3350/2026 AU Small Finance Bank Limited, (Former Known As Au Financers India Ltd.) Branch Office 19-A Dhuleshwar Gardan, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Through Its Authorized Officer Gaurav Bhati S/o Shri Purushottam, Aged About 36 Years, AU Small Finance Bank Limited Office, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

2. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

3. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

4. Shri Mandeep Singh S/o Shri Balwinder, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

5. District Magistrate, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali Mr. Prashant Bhatt For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in the present writ petition has been considered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. National Steel Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4529/2019), wherein following order was passed on

26.03.2019:-

“1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articlev226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus filed by the petitioner Bank may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.5 District Collector – cum – District Magistrate, Bikaner may kindly be directed to adhere to the provisions of Section 14 provided by the Amendment Act 2016 and pass an appropriate order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in relation to the misc. case (Section 14 of SARFAESI Act) No.139/2018 titled as “ICICI Bank Limited Vs. M/s. National Stell Corporation & Ors.” with immediate effect.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the petitioner-Bank moved an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 before the respondent No.5 District Collector, Bikaner on 23.10.2018, and while giving out the details of immovable property mortgaged by the respondents- borrowers with the petitioner-Bank, the petitioner- Bank requested that possession of the said mortgaged property may be taken from the respondents borrowers and be handed over to the petitioner-Bank or its’

duly authorized representative.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the mandate of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is required to assist secured creditor in taking the possession of the secured asset. However, as a specific mandate incorporated in Section 14 of the Act of 2002 by way of amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the authority is required to pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days, and if some reasonable cause of delay arises, then at most within 60 days.

4. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as amended, and came into effect on 1^st September,2016 reads as follows :-

“12. In the principal Act, in section 14, in sub-section (1), —

(i) in the second proviso, after the words "secured assets", the words "within a period of thirty days from the date of application" shall be inserted;

(ii) after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—"Provided further that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty day