( 2026:JHHC:22023 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5752 of 2025 ----- ICICI Bank Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having it's registered office at ICICI Bank Tower, PO & PS Racecourse Circle, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Dist.-Vadodara, State- Gujrat, Pin Code 390007, one of its branch at Amravati Complex, Po. & Ps. Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi, through its authorized representative Sri Praveen Kumar aged about 37 years, S/o Girendra Singh working Manager at Amravati Complex, Po. & Ps. Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Po. & P.S- Dhuwa, District- Ranchi Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, Po./Ps. & Dist.- Dhanbad. ….Respondents 3. Maharishikesh Jha S/O Ashish Kumar Jha (Applicant) 4. Kiran Jha W/O Ashish Kumar Jha (Co-Applicant) 5. Tanuja Bharti W/O Maharishikesh Jha (Co-Applicant) All R/O Luby Circular Road, Behind Indian Oil, PO/PS, & Dist. Dhanbad- 826001 and at Ashish Kiran Apartment, Phase 2, Flat No 111C, 3rd Floor, PO & PS Hirapur, Dist.- Dhanbad ...Proforma Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam Kumar, AC to AG 04/23.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :- i. Writ/Writs, order/orders direction/ directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent no. 2 to show cause as to how and under what circumstances the application dated 07.08.2023 preferred under Sec. 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter SARFAESI ACT) is pending since 07.08.2023. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent no. 2 to immediately and forthwith dispose of the application preferred by the petitioner strictly within the time frame as contained in section 14 of SARFAESI Act. 2. The case of petitioner is that ICICI Bank granted four loans totalling Rs.86,99,887/- to the borrowers, who mortgaged their flat and car parking space in Dhanbad, as security. After the borrowers failed to repay the loans, the accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets on 03.10.2022. (2026:JHHC:22023) 2 The Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 16.12.2022 and proceed for symbolic possession of the property under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 26.04.2023. As the borrowers did not hand over physical possession, the Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate on 07.08.2023. Although the application was received, no case number was assigned and no order has been passed till date. Thus, prayer has been made to direct disposal of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate is required to dispose of an application within 30 days, extendable by a further 30 days only after recording reasons for delay. He further submits that the District Magistrate's role under Section 14 is ministerial and not adjudicatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 1 SCC 662 held that once the statutory requirements are fulfilled, the District Magistrate is bound to assist the secured creditor in obtaining possession of the secured asset. He further submits that the prolonged pendency of the application without assigning a case number or passing any order defeats the very object of the SARFAESI Act, delays recovery proceedings, and encourages defaulting borrowers. He also refers to a judgment passed by this Court in W.P (C) No.4270 of 2026 in the case of Jharkhand Gramin Bank Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Petitioner has not come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands, and is guilty for suppression of material facts from the Hon'ble Court, and as such Petitioner is not legally entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. He further submits that after receiving the Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate called for a report from the concerned Circle Officer. The report states that the mortgaged flat is built on land in Mouza Hirapur, and some of the land is recorded as Gair Abad (government/non-settlement land) while the remaining land is recorded as Adivasi (tribal) land. He also submits that there are serious concerns regarding the nature and status of the land on which the mortgaged property is situated. ( 2026:JHHC:22023 ) 3 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that that the petitioner seeks a direction for disposal of its application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The report called for by the District Magistrate indicates that a part of the mortgaged property is recorded as Gair Majurua land, while the remaining part is recorded as Adivasi (tribal) land, to which the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act may apply. These are issues regarding the nature of the land and the title of the borrower cannot be decided by District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. 6. The District Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, performs a ministerial function and has no jurisdiction to decide such disputed questions relating to title or applicability of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He has no adjudicatory power vested upon him. The condition laid down under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act has only to be satisfied by him and then only he has to pass an order interim of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act that too, within the time frame without any delay. 7. This Court in W.P ( C) No.4270 of 2026 in the case of Jharkhand Gramin Bank Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. on the issue as to whether the Deputy Commissioner can look into title of the property or adjudicate the issue of title at paragraph 26 of the judgment has held under:- “26. The next question, which arises for consideration, is based on the arguments advanced by learned Advocate General and the Deputy Commissioners. It was their contention that they have to look into the title of the property and in some cases to look into the genuineness and legality of the transfer and also whether any transfer is prohibited by any law or not. In this context, it has to be noted that any type of adjudication is beyond the purview and scope of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and also beyond the jurisdiction of the authority. The statute has not vested upon them to adjudicate any issue. Nature of duty, which they perform under this Statute is, purely, ministerial in nature and is not adjudicatory by any means, nor can they even make any roving enquiry about the title or the nature of transfer of the property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (supra) at paragraph 18 has held that the power exercised by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor. Once all the requirements under Section 14 (2026:JHHC:22023) 4 of the SARFAESI Act are fulfilled and complied with and satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the assets which are secured. Paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - “18. Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act are ministerial steps and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.” 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass an appropriate order within a period of 30 days. From the date of receipt of copy of this order in term of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, considering the judgment passed by this Court in W.P (C ) No.4270 of 2016 in the case of Jharkhand Gramin Bank Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. with analogous cases. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23.07.2026 Anjali/-