2026:JHHC:22746 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.5092 of 2026 ----- Indian Overseas Bank through its Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager Shri Dipankar Tudu, age-48 years, s/o -Daniel Tudu, resident of Indian Overseas Bank Regional Office, Shantideep Tower, 1st Floor, Radium Road, Kutchery Chowk, P.O G. P.O P.S Kotwali, District Ranchi. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro having its office at Sector 1C, Camp 2 Road, Sector 1, P.O, P.S & Town Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro 3. Suraj Kumar Singh, Son of Dhanraj Singh, resident of Bansidih, Chas, P.O & P.S Chas, District Bokaro. 4. Ranjit Kumar Singh, son of Umesh Kumar Singh, resident of Shiv Shakti Nagar, TelidihTand, Chas, P.O & P.S Chas, District Bokaro. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. K. Bharati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Kumar, AC to AG For Resp. : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate …...... 02/22.07.2026: By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “1.For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) seeking quashing of order dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure 9) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in SARFAESI Case No. 16/2023-24 whereby the application preferred by the Petitioner-Bank u/s 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act) has been rejected. AND For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the Respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to comply with mandate of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for securing and handing over possession of the secured asset/property to the Bank in order to enable it to deliver the same to Respondent no. 3 Auction purchaser expeditiously in accordance with law. AND/OR For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) as 2026:JHHC:22746 2 Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 2. The petitioner-Bank contended that the Respondent No. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has no power to adjudicate the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act but in this case the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro has dismissed the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act after hearing the borrower and adjudicating the matter rather he should comply with the mandate of section 14 for securing and handing over possession of the secured asset/property to the Bank in order to enable it to deliver the same to Respondent no. 3-Auction purchaser. 3. The issue raised in this writ petition is similar to the issue which has been raised in W.P(C) No.4270 of 2026 and analogous cases (Jharkhand Gramin Bank vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) which has been disposed of by this Court on 15.07.2026. 4. This Court in W.P.(C) No.4270 of 2026 and analogous cases has held that any type of adjudication is beyond the purview and scope of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and also beyond the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate. The nature of the duty, which the Deputy Commissioner has to perform under the Section 14 of the Statute is 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. In this respect, it is necessary to quote paras 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted hereunder:- 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 2026:JHHC:22746 3 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 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.” 27. This Court also in W.P.(C) No. 2182 of 2026 [Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited versus State of Jharkhand & Others] and W.P.(C) No.5133 of 2023 [Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited versus State of Jharkhand & Others] has held that the District Magistrate is not an adjudicatory authority. His duty is only to assist the creditor in taking possession of the property peacefully and if there is any obstruction by any person, then to take appropriate action. 5. The borrower has got no role in proceeding arising out of an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and there is no scope of application of principle of natural justice so far, the borrower is concerned. His remedy lies under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRT. 6. Thus, issuing of notices to the borrower is absolutely illegal and should not be resorted to by any of the authorities which is in seisin of an application under 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 7. The impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in SARFAESI case No.16 of 2023- 24 is liable to set-aside as the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has transgressed the jurisdiction vested upon him as he has got no legal authority to sit as an adjudicatory Authority and dismiss the 2026:JHHC:22746 4 application. Adjudicating by the authority will amount to frustration of the legislative provisions which is impermissible. 8. Thus, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in SARFAESI Case No.16 of 2023-24 is set-aside. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.07.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 03.08.2026