1 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 APHC010044222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2269/2025 Between: Ambati Annapurna ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. 2 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 2. The petitioner herein had obtained certain financial assistance from the Union Bank of India. The said Union Bank of India, on the ground of default in repayment of the loans, had initiated action under the SARFEASI Act. As part of these proceedings, the 2nd respondent-Union Bank of India had moved Crl.M.P.No.590 of 2024, under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the application, had appointed a learned Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property which had been given as security for the repayment of the loans and to hand over the same to the authorized officer. Pursuant to these orders, the learned Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, had issued a letter, dated 21.01.2025, to the petitioner, informing him that the Advocate Commissioner proposes to execute the warrant on expiry of seven days of receipt of the said notice. 3. Aggrieved by the issuance of the warrant, under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the property is situated in Pithapuram and as such, it would only be the Magistrate exercising territorial jurisdiction over Pithapuram, who would have the jurisdiction to issue warrants under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act. It is the contention of the 3 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari District would have no jurisdiction in the matter. 4. Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act reads as follows: “14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.— (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him— (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor: 1[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that— (i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application; (ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period; (iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub- clause (ii)above; (iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount; (v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset; 4 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 (vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower; (vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower; (viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act; (ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with: Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets1[within a period of thirty days from the date of application]: 1[Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.] Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.] 2[(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,— (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. 5 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate 1[any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.” 5. A reading of this provision reveals that a secured creditor can approach either the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. There is no exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of a District, on the ground that another Magistrate would also have territorial jurisdiction over the area. We do not see any reason, in the face of the plain language of the provision, to read in such a restriction. 6. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this case and accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 6 HCJ &RRR,J W.P.No.2269 of 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.2269 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dated: 30.01.2025 RJS