1 2026:CGHC:18855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1856 of 2026 1 - Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorized Officer, Pawan Bansal, Aged About 35 Years, Having Branch Office At 1st Floor, 166 Shekhar Central, Manoramaganj, Indore (Mp) - 452001. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Sub-Divisional Office (Revenue) Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Pushpraj Shrivastava R/o A 19, Baldev Estate Dadawadi Moti Talab Para Ramiya Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh – 494001. 4 - Priyaraj Shrivastava R/o A 19, Baldev Estate Dadawadi Moti Talab Para, Ramiya Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh - 494001. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Agrawal, Advocate (through V.C.) For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, District Bastar to execute the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and hand over the physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner within prescribed by law. a stipulated time frame as 10.2 Issue any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that a loan amounting to Rs. 32,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 27.03.2014. In consideration thereof, the borrowers created a mortgage over an immovable property in favour of the petitioner, being Flat No. 20, 5th Floor, Block C, situated at Patwari Halka No. 90/1 & 90/4, Jagdalpur Dehat, Moti Talabpara Ramaiya Ward, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, admeasuring 882 sq. ft., thereby securing the loan amount. It is further stated that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 failed to adhere to the repayment 3 schedule as agreed under the loan agreement, resulting in default. Consequently, the petitioner classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 09.12.2023 in accordance with applicable guidelines. Thereafter, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 10.01.2025, calling upon the borrowers to discharge their outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 28,54,666.82/- (as calculated up to 09.01.2025) along with further interest and charges. However, despite service of the said notice, the borrowers failed to repay the dues within the stipulated period of 60 days. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur, seeking assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 02.01.2026, allowed the application and directed Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, to visit the site and take peaceful physical possession of the mortgaged property. The order further authorized breaking open the locks, if necessary, preparation of inventory, and taking police assistance to ensure compliance. Despite the clear mandate of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the concerned authority has failed to take any steps for execution of the said order and has remained inactive. Such continued inaction has deprived the petitioner of its lawful right to recover its dues by taking possession of the secured asset and 4 has frustrated the very purpose of initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of Respondent No. 2 in not executing the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate. It is contended that the SARFAESI Act has been enacted with the objective of enabling banks and financial institutions to recover their dues expeditiously without undue delay, and any failure on the part of the authorities to assist in taking possession of secured assets defeats the legislative intent. It is further submitted that once an order under Section 14 has been passed, the role of the concerned authority is purely ministerial in nature, and they are duty-bound to ensure that possession of the secured asset is handed over to the secured creditor without any delay. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that authorities exercising powers under Section 14 have no adjudicatory role and are required only to assist the secured creditor in taking possession. Learned counsel also submits that this Court, in a recent judgment in AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPC No. 5664 of 2025), has taken serious note of such delays and directed the authorities to execute orders passed under Section 14 within a specified time 5 frame. It is contended that despite such settled legal position, Respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge its statutory obligation and has unnecessarily delayed the matter, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. It is further argued that such inaction results in blockage of substantial public funds and causes financial loss not only to the petitioner institution but also adversely impacts the financial system. The petitioner submits that it has no alternative efficacious remedy and is therefore constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to forthwith execute the order dated 02.01.2026 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and hand over possession of the secured asset to the petitioner within a stipulated time. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is no willful or deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, and the alleged delay is attributable to administrative and logistical constraints at the field level. It is contended that execution of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act involves coordination with local authorities and police assistance, which may require reasonable time. It is further submitted that the authorities are in the process of taking necessary steps for compliance of the order in 6 accordance with law, and therefore, no coercive or adverse directions are warranted at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner, a secured creditor, has already obtained an order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, whereby the concerned authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, has been directed to take physical possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that despite the said order, the same has not been executed till date. 7. The scope of interference in the present petition is limited, particularly in view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act casts a statutory obligation upon the concerned authority to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset. Such duty is ministerial in nature and is required to be carried out expeditiously so as to give effect to the object and scheme of the Act. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the 7 concerned authorities to comply with the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and to undertake appropriate proceedings in furtherance thereof, expeditiously, in accordance with law. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge