1 2025:CGHC:16975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2280 of 2024 1 - State Bank Of India, Through Authorised Officer, Virendra Singh Tomar S/o R.S. Tomar, Aged About 42 Years, Office At S.B.I., S.A.R.B., Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - District Magistrate, Bastar, District Bastar (CG) 2 - M/s Naahta Food And Beverages, Office At Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Through Proprietor Shashi Naahta, W/o Meghraj Naahta R/o Shubhash Ward, Mitali Chowk, Jagdalpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, in Case RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.21 19:46:35 +0530 2 No.202401150100004/2023-2024. Vide the impugned order, the District Magistrate on an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act, 2002’) has dropped and closed the proceedings. 2. The issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra for the reason that there have been end number of decision of this Court as also by the Supreme court wherein it has been categorically held that mere because the creditor has gone to the DRT by itself would not be a ground available to District Magistrate for stalling the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 or for that matter dropping of the entire case filed by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the Act. 3. The issue involved in the present writ petition came up for hearing before this Bench in WPC No.2880 of 2021 which was decided on 21.02.2022. This Court, taking into consideration the specific provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2022, particularly the proviso to the said Section which mandates the District Magistrate to consider and decide the application under Section 14 after due verification of the contents of the affidavit of the authorized officer enclosed along with Section 14 application within an outer limit of 30 days. 4. The aforesaid writ petition stood allowed on 21.02.2022 with a direction to the District Magistrate to take a decision within 60 3 days. While allowing the aforesaid writ petition this Court had relief upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of the Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi & Another, 2019 (20) SCC 47, wherein in paragraph 44 it has been held as under : “44. Be it noted that Section 14 of the 2002 Act is not a provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court as such. It is a remedial measure available to the secured creditor, who intends to take assistance of the authorised officer for taking possession of the secured asset in furtherance of enforcement of security furnished by the borrower. The authorised officer essentially exercises administrative or executive functions, to provide assistance to the secured creditor in terms of State’s coercive power to effectuate the underlying legislative intent of speeding the recovery of the outstanding dues receivable by the secured creditor. At best, the exercise of power by the authorised officer may partake the colour of quasi- judicial function, which can be discharged even by the Executive Magistrate. The authorised officer is not expected to adjudicate the contentious issues raised by the concerned parties but only verify the compliances referred to in the first proviso of Section 14; and being satisfied in that behalf, proceed to pass an order to facilitate taking over possession of the secured assets.” 5. The aforesaid view of Supreme Court has again been reiterated recently by yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through Lrs and Anr. Vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors. SLP No.16013 of 2022, decided on 26.09.2022 and yet again in the case of R.D. Jain and Co. Vs. Capital First Ltd. And Ors, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 921. 4 6. In view of the categorical and authoritative decision of the Supreme Court and also which has been followed by this court in case of Bank of Baroda Vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara & Ors. In WPC No.2880 of 2021, the present writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. 7. The impugned order dated 28.02.2024 to the aforesaid extent is set aside. 8. The petitioner Bank is directed to issue a fresh notice to the Bor- rower on its correct address and to proceed further as per para 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The impugned dated 28.02.2024 is hereby set aside in terms of the order which is being passed. 9. Thereafter this matter is to be remitted back to the office of the respondent No.1 with a direction that the application under Section 14 of the petitioner be considered and decided at the earliest preferably within an outer limit of 60 days. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi