1 CGHC010356072026 2026:CGHC:40159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4657 of 2026 Canara Bank Through Authorised Officer, Barun Ekka, S/o Shri Kiran Ekka, Aged About 54 Years, Regional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Magistrate- Cum- Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3 - M/s Sahjanand Automobiles Through Partner Nishant Rathore, Office At Basantpur Road, In Front Of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Nishant Rathore S/o Mukesh Rathore R/o House No. 29, Ward No. 40, Choukhadiya Para, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Yukti Rathore W/o Nishant Rathore R/o House No. 29, Ward No. 40, Choukhadiya Para, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Saket Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Arham Siddiqui, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed this present petition praying for following relief:- “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 Revenue the decide to Case No. 202605090100030/2025-2026 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.” 3. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a Bank which had extended financial assistance/loans to certain borrowers against secured and mortgaged properties. As the borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amount, their loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Thereafter, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the the 3 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act of 2002”) was issued to the borrowers. Despite issuance of the notice, the borrowers failed to clear the outstanding dues, pursuant to which proceedings for taking possession of the secured assets were initiated. The petitioner-Bank thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the District Magistrate on 25.05.2026, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 202605090100030/2025-2026. However, despite the statutory requirement for disposal of the application within the prescribed period, no order has yet been passed by the District Magistrate. Aggrieved by the delay, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of its Section 14 application. The petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2274 of 2026, decided on 07.05.2026, wherein directions were issued to the concerned authority to take necessary action under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not deciding the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, in accordance with law, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner submits that the application under Section 14 is in the nature of a verification process and does not involve any adjudication of the rights of the 4 parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also, in various decisions, emphasized that such applications ought not to be kept pending without any justifiable reason. He further submits that the statutory scheme under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 contemplates disposal of the application within the prescribed period, including the aggregate period of sixty days. In the present case, more than sixty days have already elapsed since the filing of the application by the petitioner, yet no order has been passed by the District Magistrate. Such delay has seriously prejudiced the petitioner-Bank and has impeded the recovery of the outstanding loan amount and public money. He also submits that despite issuance of the demand and possession notices to the borrowers, the borrowers have failed to repay the outstanding dues, whereas the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is still pending before the respondent authority. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a decision on the said application in accordance with law, so as to enable it to proceed further with the recovery of the outstanding loan amount and to take possession of the secured assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that if the Court directs the concerned District Magistrate to consider and decide the pending application within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 5 6. Heard learned counsel for the paries and perused the documents available on record. 7. The limited grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to non-consideration of the application preferred by the petitioner-Bank under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. 8. From the record, it appears that after classification of the loan accounts of the borrowers as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), the petitioner-Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the competent authority on 25.05.2026 for taking possession of the secured assets. The said application was registered as Revenue Case No. 202605090100030/2025-2026 and is stated to be pending consideration before the District Magistrate. 9. Considering the nature of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the statutory requirement for expeditious disposal of such application, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending application within a time-bound manner. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate concerned to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, registered as Revenue Case No. 202605090100030/2025-2026, strictly in 6 accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner-Bank and the competent authority shall pass an independent order in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Akhil