1 CGHC010341942026 2026:CGHC:39130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4541 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Authorised Officer, Kamlesh Kundan, S/o Dinesh Lal Das, Aged About 48 Years, Regional Office, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - District Magistrate - Cum - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Jageshwar Prasad, S/o Late Mehattar Ram, R/o Pandritarai, Behind Pragati Ground, Near Yash Kirana Store, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Tirath Yadav, W/o Mehattar Ram, R/o Pandaritarai, Behind Pragati Ground, Near Yash Kirana Store, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. --- Respondents WPC No. 4553 of 2026 1 - Canara Bank Through- Authorised Officer, Barun Ekka, S/o Shri Kiran Ekka, Aged About 54 Years, Regional Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G. RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.08 17:56:41 +0530 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Revenue And Desaster Management Department Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara C. G. 3 - Manish Tiwari, S/o Ram Awatar Tiwari R/o 331 / K, Baba Ramdev Ward, Dharmar, Mill Gali, District Bemetara, C. G. 4 - Ram Awater Tiwari, S/o Rampal Tiwari, R/o 331 / K, Baba Ramdev Ward, Dharmar, Mill Gali, District Bemetara, C. G. --- Respondents WPC No. 4549 of 2026 1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer, Sumit Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Asheshwar Jha, Aged About 37 Years, Office At Branch Ambikapur, Surguja, District- Surguja, (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate-Cum-Collector Surguja, District- Surguja, (C.G.) 3 - M/s Amit Sales Through Proprietor Amit Kumar Agrawal, S/o Rohtas Kumar Agrawal, R/o Kundala Vasudhara City Colony, Ward No. 38, Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) 3 4 - Smt. Kalavati Goyal W/o Rohtas Goyal, R/o Kundala Vasudhara City Colony, Ward No. 38, Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Neha Goyal W/o Rajnikanth Goyal, R/o Kundala Vasudhara City Colony, Ward No. 38, Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 4546 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through- Authorised Officer, Kamlesh Kundan S/o Dinesh Lal Das Aged About 48 Years Regional Office Raipur District- Raipur Chhattsgarh, ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - District Magistrate Cum Collector Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - K. Laxmi Acharya W/o Murli Acharya R/o Ward No 62, Lane No.7 Professor Colony Mahamaya Mandir Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Murli Acharya S/o Raja Acharya R/o Ward No 62, Lane No.7 Professor Colony Mahamaya Mandir Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. Heard. 4 2. All these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 4541 of 2026 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of disposing all the writ petitions. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- 10.1 That, the records pertaining to the revenue case of the petitioner, may be kindly called for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authority to decide the Revenue Case No. 85/B-121/2025-26 as per section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Bank, which had extended financial assistance to the borrowers by sanctioning loan facilities. However, the borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amount, resulting in the loan account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Consequently, the petitioner issued a demand notice to the borrowers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002), calling upon them to 5 discharge the outstanding liability. Despite receipt of the said notice, the borrowers failed to repay the outstanding dues, whereafter the petitioner initiated measures for taking possession of the secured asset and issued the requisite possession notice. Thereafter, the petitioner, in exercise of its statutory remedy, preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the competent District Magistrate for taking possession of the secured asset. The said application was registered on 05.01.2026 as Revenue Case No. 85/B-121/2025-2026. However, despite expiry of the period prescribed under the statutory scheme for consideration and disposal of the application under Section 14, no order has yet been passed by the learned District Magistrate on the said application. The continued pendency of the proceedings is causing prejudice to the petitioner-Bank and is obstructing further steps for recovery of the outstanding loan amount and possession of the secured asset in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- authority has failed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, within the time contemplated under law, despite expiry of more than 60 days. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 14 are essentially ministerial in nature and are intended to facilitate the secured creditor in obtaining possession of the secured asset, and therefore, the application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. 6 He further submits that despite issuance of the requisite notices, the borrower has failed to discharge the outstanding liability, whereas the petitioner-Bank has already initiated proceedings for recovery of its dues. The continued inaction on the part of the learned District Magistrate is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner-Bank and is obstructing the further proceedings for recovery of the secured debt. It is, therefore, submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-authority i.e., respondent No. 2 District Magistrate Cum Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) to decide the application under Section 14 expeditiously, in accordance with law, so as to enable the petitioner-Bank to proceed further for recovery of the outstanding amount and for taking possession of the secured asset. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is pending before the competent authority and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is submitted that if this Court directs the Collector/District Magistrate to consider and decide the pending application within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. The limited grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to non-consideration of the application preferred by the 7 petitioner Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 9. From bare perusal of the record, it appears that after classification of the loan account as NPA, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 before the competent authority on 05.01.2026 for taking possession of the secured asset. The said application is stated to be pending consideration before the Collector/District Magistrate. 10. Considering the nature of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and also taking into account the fact that the statute contemplates expeditious disposal of such applications, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the competent authority to decide the pending application within a time-bound manner. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Collector/District Magistrate concerned to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner and the competent authority shall 8 pass an independent order in accordance with law. 13. With this observation and direction, the writ petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju