Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bajaj Housing Finance Limited vs District Collector And District ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:1530]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 242/2025
Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Having Its Corporate Office At
Cerebrum It Park B2 Building 5 th Floor, Kalyani Nagar, Pune-
411014, Maharashtra, Registered Office At Mumbai-Pune Road,
Akurdi, Pune-411035, Maharashtra, Branch Office At 3rd Floor,
Landmark Tower, Opp. Jai Club, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan
302001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Collector And District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan
2. Mr. Ramesh Kumar S/o Hotu Ram, R/o Ward No. 2, 14 S
Majhiwala, Shri Ganganagar, Shri Karanpur-334073,
Rajasthan.
3. Mrs. Shilpa Rani W/o Mr. Ramesh Kumar, R/o Ward No. 2,
14 S Majhiwala, Shri Ganganagar, Shri Karanpur-335073,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Nagori
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
09/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.19747/2023 : Jamu Kashmir Bank
Limited vs. Ms. Trunks and Roots & Ors. decided on
14.03.2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:1530] (2 of 4) [CW-242/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate
application before the learned District Magistrate stating therein
that the compliance of serving the notice upon the respondents
was duly made and the learned District Magistrate may be
directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the
submissions of the petitioner.
4. The relevant observations in the order dated 14.03.2024 are
reproduced hereinunder:
"7. On a fair reading of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
of 2002, it appears that for taking possession of the
secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI
Act of 2002, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the
District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short
'DM/CMM') by way of a written application requesting for
taking possession of the secured assets and documents
relating thereto and for being forwarded to it (secured
creditor) for further action.
9. Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act of 2002 are ministerial step
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 of 2002 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1530] (3 of 4) [CW-242/2025]
the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act of
2002, before Debts Recovery Tribunal.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates
that nature of powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act of 2002 is vested with the District Magistrate is
ministerial and executory and not adjudicating as the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank
& Ors. Vs. V. Noble Kumar and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0874/2013 has held that the satisfaction of the
Magistrate contemplated under the second proviso to
Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act of 2002 necessarily
requires the Magistrate to examine the factual correctness
of the assertions made in such an affidavit but not the legal
niceties of the transaction. It has been observed that the
DM has exercised the role of adjudicating authority by
citing the reason. Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again
reiterated that the role of DM is ministerial in nature so far
as section 14 of the SARFAESI Act of 2002, is concerned
and not that of adjudication. In number of cases, it is seen
that the orders are being passed as per convenience of the
officer concerned without following the mandate of the
Apex Court.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the DM has
travelled beyond the scope of Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act of 2002 and thereafter transgressed its jurisdiction by
decding the application filed by the petitioner.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of
law, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law
and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 09.01.2023
stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back
to the learned District Magistrate, Jaipur to re-register the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act of 2002 on its original number and proceed
with the matter strictly in accordance with law."
5. In view of the above, the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by
the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar is quashed and set-aside
and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Magistrate,
[2025:RJ-JD:1530] (4 of 4) [CW-242/2025]
Sri Ganganagar to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 on its original number and
proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
56-/Arun Pandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
