[2025:RJ-JP:16093] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2025 Ummeed Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd., Having Branch Office-303, Third Floor, Axis Mall, C-51, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur through its Authorized Representative Mr. Jai Sharma. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Dholi Devi Meena, wife of Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena 2. Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena son of Shri Chanda Lal, Address-Plot No. 15-126, Badh Shyopur, Vatika Road, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur and Plot No. 16, Balaji Vihar 16, Sanganer, Jaipur. 3. District Magistrate, Jaipur. 4. Police Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 5. Deputy Commissioner South, Jaipur. 6. SHO, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur South, Jaipur. ----Respondents connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5251/2025 DCB Bank Ltd., having Branch Office - S-5, Second Floor, Geejgarh Tower, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006 Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Abhinav Sharma. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma 2. Mrs. Sweta Sharma, Resident of- Add- 10/527, Opp. of Modern Happy School, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, and Office No. 207 Second Floor, The Prism Lal Kothi, Sabji Mandi Road, Jaipur And Flat No. F- 1, First Floor, Anubhav Enclave, Post No. H-94, Siddharth Nagar-H, Jaipur. 3. District Magistrate, Jaipur. 4. Police Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 5. Deputy Commissioner East, Jaipur. 6. SHO, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur East, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:16093] (2 of 4) [CW-5243/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Peush Nag with Mr.Avinash Kumbhaj JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2025 1. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar in nature, hence, both the writ petitions are heard and decided together by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5243/2025 has been taken into consideration. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaipur by which the subsequent application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”) and a prayer for providing Police protection has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-borrower has failed to repay the outstanding dues, hence, his account was declared as NPA and thereafter, an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was preferred before the District Magistrate, Jaipur and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2023 and a direction was issued for getting possession for the mortgaged property with Police protection. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the possession of the mortgaged property in question was taken from the borrower, however, at later stage, borrower entered in [2025:RJ-JP:16093] (3 of 4) [CW-5243/2025] the premises illegally while breaking the law and now, they are in possession of the same, hence, under these circumstances, again an application was filed by the petitioner for getting the restoration of possession with the Police aid. 5. Counsel submits that the District Magistrate has rejected the subsequent application vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024 by holding that once the order in this regard has already been passed on 26.12.2023, no fresh orders are required to be passed and accordingly, the subsequent application has been rejected. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner has no other alternative to get the restoration of possession. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat with the lead case of Atma Ram Bishnoi & Anr. Vs. District Collector & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8983/2022 vide order dated 21.01.2025. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the order has already been passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers contained under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 26.09.2023 and direction was issued for providing Police protection for getting possession of the mortgaged property and it [2025:RJ-JP:16093] (4 of 4) [CW-5243/2025] is informed that the possession of the mortgaged property was taken, but again the respondents has encroached upon the same while breaking the law. Under these circumstances, the petitioner again approached the District Magistrate for getting the orders of restoration of possession with Police aid, but later on, the prayer of the petitioner has been declined by the District Magistrate on a technical point that successive order with regard to the same prayer cannot be passed. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, under the changed circumstances, fresh orders can be passed on the subsequent application submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Atma Ram Bishnoi (supra). 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Jaipur to decide the application afresh in the light of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Atma Ram Bishnoi (supra). 11. Needless to observe that necessary order would be passed by the District Magistrate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /36-37