1 2025:CGHC:49147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5119 of 2025 Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer, Suraj Kumar, S/o - Kamlesh Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, Office At Bank Of India, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - M/s Krishna Steel Industries, Through Ashok Kumar Agrawal, S/o - Govind Ram Agrawal, R/o - House No. 6, Sai Heritage Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, the records pertaining to the proceedings before the respondents may kindly be called for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to assist in granting the physical possession of the mortgaged properties of the petitioner bank, also to conclude the proceedings under Section 14 of the Scrutinization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in Revenue Case No.202301041000002/17/B-121/2022-2023 with use of required force, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this petition may be disposed of with direction to respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, Raigarh to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) within time frame. 3. Leaned counsel for State contended that the authority concerned is ready to decide the representation made by the petitioner Annexure P-2, as per law. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, instead of keeping this petition pending, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition directing to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of ‘120 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with Section 14 of the Scrutinization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The said representation (Annexure P-2) shall decide after providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No.6. 6. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, if new cause of action arises later on. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant