p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.21647 of 2025 M/s. ASREC (India) Ltd., Mumbai …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- Collector-cum-District Magistrate- cum-Certificate Officer, Subarnapur and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC for OP No.1 Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate for OP Nos.2 & 3 CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 03. ORDER 18.02.2026 Petition prayer reads as under: “Under the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your Lordship's would graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties especially opposite party no.l as to show cause as to why the proceeding initiated vide OPDR Case No.01/2012 shall not be set aside and quashed for being against the statute as well as the settled law for want of authority and jurisdiction for proceeding under OPDR Act, 1962 and attaching the properties of Opp. party no.4 and going for auction and sale especially when the petitioner Company has the first Charge over the said properties permission for taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties and in case the opposite parties fails to show sufficient cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute; AND Further be pleased to direct the petitioner Company to take recourse under law/statute and thereby proceed for realization of its debt strictly in accordance within the mandate of law.” p. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that in view of decision of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2022 SC 1475, which interpreted the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 providing priority of claim of Bank, the secured asset cannot be subject matter of proceedings before the Authority under the OPDR Act; he tells us that now the secured asset is being put to auction process and therefore, all such proceedings need to be invalidated. He also tells us that Petitioner has already filed objections under Section 8 of the Act though such section is not mentioned in so many words and therefore, till a call is taken by the Competent Authority under the Act, matter should not be processed. 3. Per contra, learned ASC & learned Senior Counsel appearing for OP Nos.2 & 3 oppose the petition contending that Petitioner should seek processing of objections, which he claims to have filed. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for OP Nos.2 & 3 also draws our attention to the difference in case numbers, i.e., 1 of 2008 vis-à-vis 1 of 2012. Both the sides having argued the matter as above, now are graciously in agreement with the suggestion of this Court that the OPDR Authority, i.e., OP No.1-Collector should adjudge the objections filed by the Petitioner presumably under Section 8 of the Act before stepping forward against the subject property. In that connection, all contentions are to be left open to both the sides. We repeat that till objections are decided, the subject property shall not be put to auction, alienation or otherwise. p. 3 Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off keeping open all contentions of the Parties. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge Anisha Designation: Jr. Stenographer