[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd vs Asha Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:5956) on 2 February, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:5956]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2059/2026

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd, 5Th Floor, Shantivan Building, 11Th
A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Asha Ram S/o Adu Ram, Village Malsar Tehsil Sardarsahar
         District Churu.
2.       Adu    Ram       S/o     Sugna        Ram,       Village    Malsar   Tehsil
         Sardarsahar District Churu Presently At - Ward No. 05
         Anandgarh Post Office - 2 Kld Khajuwala District Bikaner -
         2Nd Address - Patta No. 16 Dinakti - 01-06-19881 Village
         Malsar Tehsil Sardarsahar District Churu.
3.       District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Churu.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vijay Purohit
                                   Mr. Hanuman Singh Gour
For Respondent(s)            :     -



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

02/02/2026

By way of filing the present civil writ petition, the petitioner

has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

I. The present writ petition may kindly be allowed.

II. The order dated 08.10.2025 (Ann.3) passed by the respondent authority i.e. District Collector-

      cum-District      Magistrate,     Churu,     rejecting     the
      application    filed    by    the   petitioner/Bank      under
      Section    14     of   the   SARFAESI     Act,   2002     may
      kindly be quashed and set aside.

III. Further, the respondent Authority may be directed to allow the application filed by the petitioner/Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 with a direction to provide appropriate police aid and all consequential reliefs

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:36:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5956] (2 of 6) [CW-2059/2026]

in pursuance of various provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, more particularly, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. IV. Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent

No.1 and 2 availed a loan facility from the petitioner- Bank. However,

the respondents failed to honour the repayment schedule and defaulted

in payment of monthly installment as agreed.

3. Consequently, the account of the borrower was classified as a

Non-performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the regulatory norms.

Thereafter, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated

and an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed

seeking assistance for taking possession of the secured asset.

4. The respondent No.3 i.e. the District Collector cum District

Magistrate, Churu vide order dated 08.10.2025 after hearing the

submissions of the petitioner- Bank, dismissed the application filed

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act while holding that certain

requisites i.e. ID Cards of the authorized officer/ CERSAI certificate and

the loan statements reflecting the outstanding dues had not been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated

08.10.2025 has been passed in total disregard to the provisions of

SARFAESI Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Standard Chartered Bank vs. Noble Kumar & Ors.": (2013) 9

SSC 620 relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced here under:-

"24. An analysis of the nine sub-clauses of the proviso which deal with the information that is required to be furnished in the affidavit filed by the secured creditor indicates in substance that:

24.1. (i) there was a loan transaction under which a borrower is liable to repay the loan amount with interest,

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:36:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5956] (3 of 6) [CW-2059/2026]

24.2. (ii) there is a security interest created in a secured asset belonging to the borrower, 24.3. (iii) that the borrower committed default in the repayment, 24.4. (iv) that a notice contemplated under Section 13(2) was in fact issued, 24.5. (v) in spite of such a notice, the borrower did not make the repayment, 24.6. (vi) the objections of the borrower had in fact been considered and rejected, 24.7. (vii) the reasons for such rejection had been communicated to the borrower, etc.

25. The satisfaction of the Magistrate contemplated under the second proviso to Section 14(1) 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 is only after recording of his satisfaction the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding taking of possession of the secured asset."

6. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the order dated

21.07.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the

case of "Sammaan Capital Limited vs. District Magistrate &

District Collector, Kota" passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.10824/2025. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced

below for ready reference:-

"8. The issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 passed in the case of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited vs. M/S Trunks and Roots and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19747/2023, wherein the issue posed for consideration of this Court was "Whether while exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the District Magistrate would act as an executing authority or adjudicating authority?" The aforesaid question was answered by this Court in para Nos.9 to 14, which reads as under:

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

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:36:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5956] (4 of 6) [CW-2059/2026]

creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured asset seven 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 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 andOrs. 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, theorder impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and the sameis 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.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:36:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5956] (5 of 6) [CW-2059/2026]

14.The instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of."

9. While deciding the aforesaid writ petition, a direction was issued to all the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates/District Magistrates to follow the order passed by this Court as well as the judgments passed by the Apex Court in their letter and spirit and shall not make any adventure in interpreting the order in their own way.

10. Consequently, the direction issued by the District Magistrate, Kota in last para of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 i.e. "the order shall not be executed by the concerned Police Officials, in case, any dispute with regard to title or possession arises and then under such circumstances, the matter be remitted to the Court", was totally unwarranted. Hence, that part of the order stands deleted/expunged."

7. Learned counsel submitted that since the impugned order dated

08.10.2025 has been passed by overlooking the settled legal position

enunciated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Standard

Chartered Bank (supra) and the order passed by the co-ordinate

Bench in the case of Sammaan Capital Limited (supra), wherein it

has been held that while deciding the application under Section 14 of

SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate is only required to verify the

factual aspects, and is neither empowered nor vested with jurisdiction

to examine the legal niceties. On this ground, it is prayed that the

impugned order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-3) may be quashed and

set aside.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and