Patna High Court
Vidhasagar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; grievances under Sections 13(2) and 14 must be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
Vidhasagar Prasad filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a certiorari to quash a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding payment of Rs. 45.11 lakh, and to set aside an order under Section 14 authorising the District Magistrate to direct possession of his mortgaged property. The Court, after hearing counsel, referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phonix ARC (2023) which held that actions under Section 14 are ministerial and not subject to judicial review, and that any grievance must be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Consequently, the High Court held the writ petition non‑maintainable and directed the petitioner to approach the DRT. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a DRT application.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(2) and an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable before the High Court.
- Whether the District Magistrate’s power under Section 14 is a ministerial act beyond judicial scrutiny.
- Which forum is appropriate for a borrower’s grievance under the SARFAESI Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 17
- ministerial act
- possession of secured assets
- writ of certiorari
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1474 of 2026
=====================================================
Vidhasagar Prasad S/o Late Krishnadev Prasad Resident of Village- Nagar
Prisad Sheohar, P.S. and District Sheohar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate -Cum- Collector, Sheohar.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Sheohar.
3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sheohar.
4. The Circle Officer, Sheohar.
5. The Authorized Officer, Chola Mandalam Investment and Finance Co-
Limited, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, SC 13 with
Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC 13.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue an appropriate order/s
direction/s preferably in including the writ
nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the notice
dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner
Under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assests and
Enforcement of security interest Act 2002.
(hereinafter referred to as SARFAEST Act 2002
for the sake of brevity issued Under the
Signature of Authorized Officer of Cholta
Mandalam investment investigation and
Finance Company limited whereby and where
under the petitioner has been called upon to
make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.
45,114.74 (Rs. Forty five Lakhs Eleven
Patna High Court CWJC No.1474 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
2/5
thousand four hundred only) within 60 days of
the receipt of the notice together any interest,
penal interest cost and other charges which
may became due in future til the realization of
the entire outstanding amount failing which the
Secured creditor will exercise its power
provided under the Act.
(ii) To quash the order dated 2.9.25
passed in SARFAEST Case No. 346 of 2025
passed by the Collector Cum District
Magistrate Sheohar in exercise of powers
Under Section 14 of the SARFAEST Act 2002 to
authorizing the Sub Divisional Officer to fix a
date of taking Physical possession of the
Mortgaged property of the petitioner with the
help of Circle Officer and S.H.O. and make a
demand of police force from the Superintendent
of Police Sheohar.”
3. Without going into the merits or demerits of the
case, the present writ petition is disposed of at the stage of
admission with the consent of both the Counsels.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna
Rama Tarle Dead through legal representatives and Anr.
Versus Phonix ARC Private Limited and Ors. reported in
(2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 662 has held as under:-
“15. On a fair reading of Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act, it appears that for taking
possession of the secured assets in terms of
Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured
creditor is obliged to approach the District
Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by
way of a written application requesting for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1474 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
3/5
taking possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto and for being
forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further
action.
16. 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. As observed and held
by this Court in NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Subir Chakravarty [NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Subir Chakravarty, (2022) 10 SCC 286 : (2023)
1 SCC (Cri) 157] , the aforesaid act is a
ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of
the essence and this is the spirit of the special
enactment.
18. Thus, the powers exercisable by
CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act are ministerial steps 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1474 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
4/5
requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act 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 the proceedings under Section 17
of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal.
5. Having regard to the above made submissions and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above
mentioned case, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. That in case,
the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the notice issued
under Section 13(2) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, he has
to approach the DRT, Patna under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act.
6. Having regard to the above, the present writ
petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the DRT, Patna, if he is so advised.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1474 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
5/5
7. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.