K.Gunaseelan v. The Senior District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.12778 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.9668 of 2016 K.Gunaseelan : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Senior District Collector & District Magistrate, Karur, Karur District.
2.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.
3.The Authorized Officer, M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, No.208/1, S.R.N.Tower, 2nd Floor, 1st Cross, Sengunthapuram, Kovai Road, Karur-639 002.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Rc.D4/1329/2015, dated 12.07.2016 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents 1,2&4: Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem **********
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate -cum- District Collector, dated 12 July, 2016, directing physical possession of the secured asset invoking Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The impugned order is challenged primarily on the ground that the order does not contain any reason much less justifiable reason. In short, it is the contention of the petitioner that the learned District Magistrate failed to indicate the measures taken by the Finance Limited prior to initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. The issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. V.Noble Kumar [2013(9) SCC 620]. The Supreme Court in Noble Kumar's case observed that the Magistrate must apply his mind to the affidavit filed by the bank and satisfy that it is necessary to deliver possession of the secured asset to the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that necessary particulars were included in the affidavit filed by the Finance Limited.
5. However, no such particulars were mentioned by the District Magistrate in the order impugned in the Writ Petition.
6. Since there is no reference about the action taken earlier by the Finance Limited in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, we are constrained to set aside the order with liberty to the District Collector to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the third respondent.
7. In the result, the impugned order dated 12 July, 2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Collector for fresh consideration. The District Collector is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and decide the matter, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.
To 1.The Senior District Collector & District Magistrate, Karur, Karur District.
2.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
+1CC to Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj, Advocate, SR.No.79480 +1CC to Mr.B.Saravanan, Advocate, SR.No.79485 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 79727 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.12778 of 2016 Dated: 18.09.2017 SML AM/SKN RSK/SAR 1/22.09.2017/3P/7C