1 2026:CGHC:23133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2500 of 2026 Manohar Lal Dhanwani S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Dhanwani Aged About 69 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward No. 15, P.S. And Tahsil- Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Having Its Registered Office At Cst Road, Kanila, Mumbai Through Its Manager Registered Office At Cst Road, Kanila Mumbai (Mahasrathra) 400098 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate/ Collector, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.05.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the notice/order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 as well as the order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Chief YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 18:19:49 +0530 2 Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara in proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act, 2002”), whereby respondent No.1 was permitted to take physical possession of the mortgaged residential house of the petitioner on account of alleged default in repayment of loan installments. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned action has been taken without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases, Misc. Criminal Case No.204/2025 (Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Vs Manohar Lal Dhanwani); 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 (Ann.P/2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash the consequential notice dated 15.04.2026 (Ann.P/1) issued by the Tahsildar, Bhatapara; 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Restrain the respondents from taking physical 3 possession of the petitioner's residential property; 10.5 Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 10.6 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2 After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Tahsildar has issued notice dated 15.04.2026 directing the petitioner to hand over physical possession of the mortgaged residential house situated at Gram Arvethi, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the impugned proceedings have been initiated for taking possession of the secured asset on account of alleged default in repayment of loan installments, the petitioner was never afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and no effective notice was served upon him. He further submits that the petitioner intends to challenge the impugned action by filing an appropriate Securitization Application 4 before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Therefore, he prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the concerned DRT within a stipulated time. 4 Learned State counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and particularly taking into consideration the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing appropriate proceedings within a period of 10 days from today. It is further directed that for a period of 10 days from today, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 and notice dated 15.04.2026, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available to him in accordance with law. 6 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favor of the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh