Financial institutions are entitled to police assistance for the restoration of possession of secured assets if the borrower forcibly and illegally re-occupies the property after legal possession was taken under the SARFAESI Act.

Order

11/05/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10092/2025 ( HDFC Bank Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors .) decided on 05.08.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as HDFC Bank Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors (supra). The order passed in the said writ petition is reproduced herein below:-

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“A. Issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the Respondent no. 2 "Ld. District Collector, Chittorgarh" to forthwith and or/and within such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to render necessary assistance with the aid and assistance of Respondent no.3 to 4 for restoration of the secured asset to HDFC Bank Ltd. (Petitioner Bank) in terms of the order dated 26/09/2017 (Annexure-4) passed under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; and/or

B. Issue an appropriate Writ or order to declare that the Respondent nos. 5 to 7 have violated the mandate of SARFAESI Act, 2002 thereby forcefully and unlawfully divesting/dispossessing the Petitioner Bank from secured asset and further declare the Respondent no. 3 need to honor the order dated 26/09/2017 passed by the Respondent no.2, under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; and/or

C. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent no. 3 and 4 to consider the Complaint dated- 13/12/2024 & 19/12/2024 (Annex+9 preferred by Petitioner Bank and register an FIR against the respondent borrowers, who have illegally dispossessed the Petitioner Bank from the Secured asset and has tried to overreach the law as well as the orders passed by judicial authorities, which has to be nipped in the bud right away, lest the rule of law shall suffer; and/or

D. By an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) impose the cost against the respondent borrowers as well as state instrumentalities for inaction and the said cost may be directed to be given to the petitioner Bank;”

Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a financial institution and it had granted loan in favour of the respondent No.5 M/s. Annu Transport-borrower and respondent No.6 Gajanand Sharma- co-borrower and the respondent No.7 was the guarantor. Since, the loan amount was not repaid by the respondent No.5 & 6, therefore, it was declared as NPA and proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short, Act of 2002’) were undertaken by the petitioner Bank. In pursuance of the proceedings undertaken by the petitioner under the Act of 2002, possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner Bank. After the petitioner had taken over the possession, the respondent No.6 broke the locks of the property and forcibly entered into it. In the circumstances, the petitioner being a financial institution approached the District Collector, Chittorgarh and Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh for restoring the possession of the mortgaged property to it but till date, no action has been taken by them.

It is also contended that despite ample opportunities having been granted to the responden