***

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner which is a -Financial Institution under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, alleging in-action on the part of respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Palwal, seeking deciding of application dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) submitted by petitioner Financial Institution under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’). It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proceedings are pending before DRT/DRAT.

2. It was submitted by learned counsel that the respondent-borrower(s) availed a loan facility of Rs.85,30,000/- from the petitioner-Financial Institution, and because of default in the repayment, the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and consequently demand notice dated 19.11.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was duly served upon the borrower(s), calling upon them to discharge their liability within 60 days. The borrower(s) failed to comply with the aforesaid demand notice and therefore, the secured creditor proceeded to take recourse to measures under Section 13(4), of the SARFAESI Act by issuing possession notice dated 25.02.2026 and thereafter the financial institution filed application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, on 10.04.2026.

3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Jain & Co. Versus Capital First Limited and Others, 2023 (1) SCC 675 dealt with scope and ambit of jurisdiction under section 14 SARFAESI Act. Relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under:-

“23. However, for taking physical possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM 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. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.

24. As mandated by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time-limit and pass a suitable order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of 30 days from the date of application which can be extended for such further period but not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.

25. As observed and held by this Court in NKGSB Coop. Bank [NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, (2022) 10 SCC 286 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 157] , the step taken by the CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto is a ministerial step. It could be taken by the CMM/DM himself/herself or through any officer subordinate to him/her, including the Advocate Commissioner who is considered as an officer of his/her court. Section 14 does not oblige the CMM/DM to go personally and take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto. Thus, we reiterate that the step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or application of mind would require. The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets.”

4. Apart from above, the guidelines were laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bank of Maharashtra Vs. District Magistrate, Hisar And Others in CWP-7018-2022 decided on 28.05.2024 which must be adhered to by the concerned authorities.

5. This Court therefore would issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, in view of District Magistrate, Palwal, not having discharged the statutory obligation under Section 14(1) proviso within maximum stipulated time of 60 days.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to learned District Magistrate, Palwal to decide the application dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law on the date already fixed, and if for any reason it cannot be decided on that date, to decide the same expeditiously within a period of 30 days thereafter.

7. We further direct that this order shall however be subject to any restraint/interim/final order which may have been passed by any judicial forum, in favour of the borrowers/guarantor/any aggrieved person, who is party to this lis.

Order accordingly.

********