1 2025:CGHC:17069-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 233 of 2025 1 - M/s Shri Shyam Agro Products Through Its Proprietor- Shri Jay Shankar Sahu, S/o Laxman Sahu Aged About 39 Years Situated At Gram Labji, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Shri Laxman Sahu S/o Bigan Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Road, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Phuleshwari Devi W/o Shri Laxman Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Raod, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Chanda Sahu W/o Shri Jay Shankar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Road, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Central Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Collector And District Magistrate Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For respondent No.1/Bank : Mr. Parth Shrivastava holding brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 . 04 .202 5 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Parth Shrivastava holding brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sangharsh Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 3. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the writ petition have challenged the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1065 of 2025 (Central Bank of India Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs. 18,86,75,000/- (Eighteen Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Rupees only) on 23.11.2022 by the respondent Bank. The appellants failed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The account was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) by 3 the respondent Bank on 29.11.2023. The respondent bank submitted application u/s 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) to the District Magistrate Sarguja seeking assistance in taking possession of the secured assets on 18.07.2024. The appellant No.1 submitted a proposal on 19.10.2024 for one time repayment before the respondent Bank. However, no settlement was arrived at and appellant No. 1 once again submitted proposal dated 30.12.2024 to the respondent Bank and the said proposal for repayment submitted by appellant No.1 was rejected by the respondent Bank vide memorandum dated 03.01.2025 and the appellant No.1 was denied an opportunity to make the repayment. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant No.1 approached the District Magistrate stating that they were inclined to repay the loan amount and they made a request to the District Magistrate not to proceed under the said application. The District Magistrate vide order dated 16.01.2025 closed the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and directed the respondent Bank to give time to appellant No.1 to make repayment and deposit the entire amount. The the order dated 16.01.2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Distt. Sarguja was challenged by the respondent Bank before this Court in WPC No. 1065 of 2025 and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.02.2025 setting aside the order dated 16.01.2025 issued by the District 4 Magistrate on the ground that the same was contrary to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, this appeal. 5. Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellants are willing to make the repayment and therefore, the District Magistrate has rightly, in exercise of powers u/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act, directed the respondent Bank to grant time to the appellants enabling them to repayment of default amount, but the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the reasoning given by the District Magistrate, which forms the basis of order dated 16.01.2025, therefore, it is prayed that instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Parth Shrivastava holding brief of Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to the District Magistrate is only to direct the revenue authority to facilitate the Bank for obtaining possession of the property in question i.e. secured/mortgaged property and the said application cannot be rejected on the ground that the borrower is ready to pay the loan amount or not. The District Magistrate is not having any power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to consider such type of prayer and hence, the District Magistrate has exceeds its jurisdiction by concluding the 5 proceeding on the application moved under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the assurance of the borrower that they are ready to repay the loan amount vide order dated 16.01.2025 which is contrary to the provision of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and as such, the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, especially Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it appears that the District Magistrate is only authorized to assist the secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the District Magistrate is not having any power under of the SARFAESI Act to adjudicate anything and to consider the request made by the borrower and the District Magistrate exceeds its jurisdiction, while passing the order dated 16.01.2025, which has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity 6 or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra