[2026:RJ-JP:24061] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10028/2026 URN: CW / 22357U / 2026 Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, A Housing Finance Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, Having its Registered Officer at Motilal Oswal Tower, Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel ST Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its authorised Signatory. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of Department of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariate Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, S P Office, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. 3. The SHO, Police Station, Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 4. Rohitash Singh S/o Mr. Devi Singh, Resident of 14, Indrawali, Poat-Mathurahera, Bhole Mandir Ke Pas, Kathumar, Alwar, Rajasthan. 5. Seema Gurjar W/o Shri Rohitash Singh, Resident of 14, Indrawali, Poat-Mathurahera, Bhole Mandir Ke Pas, Kathumar, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10029/2026 URN: CW / 22360U / 2026 Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, A Housing Finance Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, Having its Registered Officer at Motilal Oswal Tower, Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel ST Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Authorised Signatory. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariate Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, S P Office, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001. 3. The SHO, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 4. Hari Singh S/o Mr. Prabhati Ram, Resident of Village Peelwa, Post Bhajeda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 5. Sheela W/o Shri Hari Singh, Resident of Village Peelwa, Post Bhajeda, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (2 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Pareek Mr. Punit Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C. Ms. Devakriti Vashistha, AAAG with Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order REPORTABLE 30/06/2026 1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions involve almost similar facts, causes of action and grievances, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they are being decided by this common order. Facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10028/2026 are being taken into consideration for the purpose of convenience and understanding the dispute involved in the above writ petitions. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a financial institution registered under the National Housing Bank Act, 1987, for extending loan to the borrowers and is also a registered institution under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002'). 3. Petitioner has come out with a case that respondents- borrowers availed loan from the petitioner by mortgaging the secured asset. However, they failed to pay the loan as per stipulated conditions and within the scheduled time. Under these circumstances, the petitioner invoked provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 2002 for recalling the loan amount and still when the [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (3 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] loan was not repaid, measures under Section 13 of the Act of 2002 were taken by the petitioner and ultimately an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, for providing necessary measures to assist secured creditor (petitioner) in taking possession of the secured asset. 4. As per the petitioner, an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2026, whereby petitioner was entitled to take physical possession of the secured asset and the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, was directed to provide police assistance to the petitioner-secured creditor for the purpose of taking possession of the aforesaid asset. 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that after passing order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the police authorities are under an obligation to provide police assistance for the purpose of taking possession of secured asset, yet the respondent-police authorities are not complying with the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, and till date police assistance has not been provided to the petitioner, which is causing serious prejudice and miscarriage of the justice to the petitioner, and consequently deprives the petitioner of possession of the secured asset, for which he is otherwise entitled under law and as per order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. 6. 6. Mr. Akhilesh Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent-police authorities are verbally asking the petitioner to deposit expenses for providing the police assistance, whereas there are no directions in order dated [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (4 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] 17.03.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, for depositing any such amount. Hence, such verbal demand of the respondent-police authorities is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 7. The writ petition was opposed by respondent-Police Department raising an objection that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Act of 2002; however, without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 8. Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that under the Police Act and Rules made as well as on the basis of the circulars issued by respondent-Department from time to time, the respondents have every right to demand for expenses even for execution of decree or for implementing any order passed by any Court for providing police assistance in order to get possession of any property. Hence, such demand, even if raised by the respondent- Department cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 9. Heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that once any order is passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for taking possession of secured asset and for handing over the same to the secured creditor, such order created right in favour of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset in [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (5 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] accordance with the directions given by the concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. 11. As per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the concerned Magistrate can also pass an order directing for police assistance to the secured creditor for the purpose of taking possession. 12. Further Section 14 (2) of the Act of 2002 specifies that the concerned Magistrate for the purpose of securing compliance of order earlier passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, can take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. Thus, it is clear that in the event of non-compliance of any order passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, jurisdiction vests with the same Court for passing further directions in order to secure compliance of its earlier order. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that efficacious remedy for the purpose of seeking relief claimed in the instant writ petitions, is already available to the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 and an appropriate application can be filed by the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate for ensuring compliance of its earlier order. 13. In the case of R.D. Jain & Company Vs. Capital First Limited & Ors. reported in 2023 (1) SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while explaining the scope and extent of powers of concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 has although observed that such powers are not adjudicatory and are ministerial in nature, yet simultaneously, it has been observed that Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 is an enabling provision and [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (6 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] permits the concerned Magistrate to take such steps and use force as may in his opinion be necessary and under Section 14(1-A) of the Act of 2002, the concerned Magistrate can also take services of any officer subordinate to him. 14. This Court while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9920/2026 (Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 29.06.2026 has observed as under: "4. This Court finds that Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is a self contained Code for the purpose of taking possession and even in the cases, where despite directions given by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate, as the case may be, in case, necessary police help is not provided by the Authorities, then under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002, appropriate application can be moved by the aggrieved financial institution for seeking further directions for securing compliance of order earlier passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate as the case may be. 5. In the instant case, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner has filed any application under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 for seeking appropriate directions for the purpose of compliance of order dated 06.04.2026. 6. Under these circumstances at this stage the writ petition is premature and is not maintainable, hence, is hereby dismissed." 15. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are not maintainable and liable to be rejected in view of specific efficacious remedy prescribed under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002. 16. As regards, second grievance raised by the petitioner is that the police authorities are demanding expenses for providing police assistance, despite there being no such direction in the order earlier passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, this Court finds that the question with regard to validity of such demand by the police authorities has already [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (7 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tyger Home Finance Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14449/2025) decided on 30.10.2025, wherein it has been observed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court as under: "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section14 of the 'Act of 2002' there is no such provision by which the secured creditor may be directed to deposit any expenses of police assistance, in case, any such assistance is taken for securing possession of the secured asset. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage make a limited prayer to delete the aforesaid condition in the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, by which the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount for expenses of police assistance. 4. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ - C NO. 9723 titled as Pnb Housing Fiance Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dated 14.11.2024 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2310/2022 titled as Valeed Ahmed & Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur & Ors. dated 19.04.2022. ................... 7. Admittedly, there is no provision under Section 14 of the 'Act of 2002' which may authorize the learned Magistrate to direct the secured creditor to deposit any expenses of police assistance in taking possession of the secured asset. 8. In that view of the matter, the direction given to the petitioner for depositing the expenses of police assistance vide impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar is hereby set aside." 17. In the light of above observations given in the case of Tyger Home Finance Private Limited (supra), this Court is also of the similar view that as under Section 14(1-A) of the Act of 2002, the concerned Magistrate can give direction to any officer subordinate to him to take possession of secured asset and there is no provision whatsoever under the Act of 2002 for charging any [2026:RJ-JP:24061] (8 of 8) [CW-10028/2026] amount for expenses, therefore, demand of such nature by the police authorities is without jurisdiction. In the instant cases, where powers are being exercised under the Act of 2002, no reliance can be placed by the respondents upon the provisions of Police Act or Rules made thereunder. 18. In view of above observations, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed on account of having alternative efficacious remedy. 19. However, it is made clear that mere dismissal of these writ petitions shall not curtail rights of the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 before the concerned Magistrate for securing compliance of its earlier order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. In the event of filing any such application, the concerned Magistrate shall examine the contents thereof and shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 20. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 20-21/DAKSH