# Bank Of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur v. D.M., Maharajganj & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 666
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1755 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bank-of-baroda-branch-gorakhpur-v-d-m-maharajganj-ors-48227
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 'SARFAESI Act'
- Section 14 - Expeditious disposal of S. 14
applications - D.M. to pass suitable orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the
secured assets within a period of thirty
days from the date of application - if no
order is passed within the said period of
thirty days for reasons beyond his control,
D.M. may, after recording reasons in
writing, pass the order within such further
period but not exceeding in aggregate
sixty days - In Writ-C No.7126 of 2021
High Court issued a general direction on
24.08.2021 to all the District Magistrates
to keep a record/register of all the
pending applications filed u/s 14 of the
Act - said register to be duly inspected by
the District Magistrate from time to time
and also countersigned by him - a
quarterly report of all institution of
applications filed u/s 14 of the Act
together with the length of pendency of
each application be sent to the Registrar
General of the High Court in the tabular
form who shall place the same before the
appropriate Committee dealing with the
functioning
of
the
Debt
Recovery
Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunals - G.O. dated 13.09.2021 &
11.02.2022
issued
directing
strict
compliance of the order dated 24.08.2021
passed in Writ-C No.7126

Disposed of. (E-5)

## Text

666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by this Court as indicated herein
above.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the
petition succeeds and is allowed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 1755 of 2022

Bank Of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.M., Maharajganj & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 'SARFAESI Act'
- Section 14 - Expeditious disposal of S. 14
applications - D.M. to pass suitable orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the
secured assets within a period of thirty
days from the date of application - if no
order is passed within the said period of
thirty days for reasons beyond his control,
D.M. may, after recording reasons in
writing, pass the order within such further
period but not exceeding in aggregate
sixty days - In Writ-C No.7126 of 2021
High Court issued a general direction on
24.08.2021 to all the District Magistrates
to keep a record/register of all the
pending applications filed u/s 14 of the
Act - said register to be duly inspected by
the District Magistrate from time to time
and also countersigned by him - a
quarterly report of all institution of
applications filed u/s 14 of the Act
together with the length of pendency of
each application be sent to the Registrar
General of the High Court in the tabular
form who shall place the same before the
appropriate Committee dealing with the
functioning
of
the
Debt
Recovery
Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunals - G.O. dated 13.09.2021 &
11.02.2022
issued
directing
strict
compliance of the order dated 24.08.2021
passed in Writ-C No.7126

Disposed of. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. When the case was listed on
10.02.2022, the following order was passed
:-

"Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State.

This writ petition has been filed
by the bank praying for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondent no.1/District
Magistrate, Maharajganj to decide the
application dated 15.04.2017 bearing case
no.289 of 2017 and computerised case no
D 201705470289 titled as "Manager Dena
3 All. Bank of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur Vs. D.M., Maharajganj & Ors.
667
bank Gorakhpur vs. Maya Devi and others"
preferred by the petitioner bank, U/Sec. 14
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, as the statutory
time period has elapsed much back; and

(ii) Issue in favour of the
petitioner any other writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem just
and proper in the circumstances of the case
as also in the interest of justice."

In Writ-C No.7126 [Indian Bank
(Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) vs. State Of
U.P. and 4 Others], a coordinate Bench of
this Court passed the following order on
24.08.2021:-

"Heard
Shri
Habib
Ahmad,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed by the
Bank seeking a direction in the nature of
mandamus for timely conclusion of the
proceedings under Section 14 of The
Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as an 'SARFAESI Act') being
Case No. 3878 of 2018 (Allahabad Bank vs.
Sushmita Srivastava and others).

Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the proceedings under
Section 13 of the Act had been concluded
on 24.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner
had filed an application dated 23.01.2018
under Section 14 of the Act before the
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to secure
the physical possession of the secured
asset, but the same has remained pending
for more than three and a half years. He
further submits that the first proviso to
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act clearly
provides a time period of 30 days for
concluding those proceedings. In any case,
the second proviso thereto provides for an
extension of that time period to 60 days, for
reasons recorded in writing. That being the
clear mandate of the law, all efforts should
be made by the concerned to ensure strict
compliance, so that the proceedings under
Section 14 of the Act are concluded, within
a period of 60 days from the date of filing
of such application.

While the Act requires recording
of reasons beyond delay of 30 days, we feel
that in the event of delay beyond 60 days,
the matter should be monitored by the
concerned District Magistrate. The reasons
for delay should be regularly examined and
necessary directions issued in writing to
ensure full/effective compliance of the law.

The Apex Court in C.Bright vs.
The District Collector & Ors. 2020 AIR SC
5747 has held as under:-

"20. The Act was enacted to
provide a machinery for empowering banks
and financial institutions, so that they may
have the power to take possession of
secured assets and to sell them. The DRT
Act was first enacted to streamline the
recovery of public dues but the proceedings
under the said Act have not given desirous
results. Therefore, the Act in question was
enacted. This Court in Mardia Chemical,
Transcore and Hindon Forge Private
Limited has held that the purpose of the Act
pertains to the speedy recovery of dues, by
banks and financial institutions. The true
intention
of
the
Legislature
is
a
determining factor herein. Keeping the
objective of the Act in mind, the time limit
to take action by the District Magistrate
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been fixed to impress upon the
authority to take possession of the secured
assets.
However,
inability
to
take
possession within time limit does not
render the District Magistrate Functus
Officio. The secured creditor has no
control over the District Magistrate who is
exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of
the Act for public good to facilitate
recovery of public dues. Therefore, Section
14 of the Act is not to be interpreted
literally without considering the object and
purpose
of
the
Act.
If
any
other
interpretation is placed upon the language
of Section 14, it would be contrary to the
purpose of the Act. The time limit is to
instill a confidence in creditors that the
District Magistrate will make an attempt to
deliver possession as well as to impose a
duty on the District Magistrate to make an
earnest effort to comply with the man- date
of the statute to deliver the possession
within 30 days and for reasons to be
recorded within 60 days. In this light, the
remedy under Section 14 of the Act is not
rendered
redundant
if
the
District
Magistrate is unable to handover the
possession. The District Magistrate will
still be enjoined upon, the duty to facilitate
delivery of possession at the earliest."

Since, large number of matters
are coming up before this Court on regular
basis, wherein, repeatedly banks are
seeking directions of this Court to conclude
the proceedings under Section 14 of the
Act, we find that the trend thus developing
runs against the statutory scheme as
explained by the Supreme Court in the
decision of C.Bright (Supra).

Accordingly, we dispose of the
writ petition with a direction that the
instant
proceedings
be
concluded
necessarily within a period 30 days' unless
there is any legal impediment in the nature
of any stay order obtained by the competent
court.

In view of large number of
petitions coming up before this Court, we
issue a direction to all the District
Magistrates in the State of U.P. to keep a
record/register
of
all
the
pending
applications filed under Section 14 of the
Act that may clearly disclose to the District
Magistrate (on a fortnightly basis) details
of all institutions of such applications made
in that district and their disposal within
that time.

The said register may be duly
inspected by the District Magistrate from
time to time and also countersigned by him.
Based on the entries recorded in such
register, a quarterly report of all institution
of applications filed under Section 14 of the
Act together with the length of pendency of
each application be sent to the Registrar
General of this Court in the tabular form
that may indicate the requirement of the
Act is being fulfilled, in letter and spirit,
who shall place the same before the
appropriate Committee dealing with the
functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunals
and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals.

The above direction has become
necessary because at present, it appears
that
generally
the
proceedings
for
obtaining actual physical possession are
being delayed much beyond the time limit
set by the statute. It creates avoidable
litigation and defeats the very object of the
Act.

Let a copy of this order be
communicated by the Registrar General to
the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh
for
further
intimation
and
3 All. Bank of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur Vs. D.M., Maharajganj & Ors.
669
compliance by all the District Magistrates
in the State of U.P and the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Prayagraj. Also, let a
copy of this order be placed before the
appropriate Committee dealing with the
functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunals
and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals."

We find that despite clear orders
of this Court, the District Magistrates of
different districts are not yet complying
with the aforesaid directions. It appears
that the Chief Secretary of the Government
of Uttar Pradesh has also not taken any
action to ensure compliance of the orders
of this Court.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct
the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to file
his personal affidavit within one week from
today and show cause for non-compliance of
the statutory provisions of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as
well as the order of this Court in the case of
Indian Bank (supra). The respondent no.1 is
also directed to file counter affidavit within
the same period.

Put up as a fresh case before the
appropriate Bench on 18.02.2022."

3. A personal affidavit of the Chief
Secretary, U.P. Lucknow dated 18.02.2022
and a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
no.1/District Magistrate, Maharajganj dated
18.02.2022 have been filed today, which are
taken on record. Learned Standing Counsel
has also produced before us instructions of the
Additional Chief Secretary, Home, dated
14.02.2022, which is kept on record.

4. Shri Durga Shanker Mishra, Chief
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in his
personal affidavit has stated as follows:-

"5. That, it is most respectfully
submitted that in compliance of the order
dated 24-08-2021 passed by this Hon'ble
Court
in
Writ
Petition
No.(C)
No.7126/2021 Indian Bank (Allahabad
Bank) Vs. State of U.P. and others, the
Secretary, Finance (Institutional) Govt. of
U.P. Lucknow, vide Government Order
No.-533B/V.(San.) Anu.-35-2020-21 dated
13.09.2021 has issued directions to all the
District Magistrate of the Uttar Pradesh to
this effect to decide all the pending matters,
filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002, within 30 days (if there is no
legal obstruction of any kind) on priority
basis by running a special campaign. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, the copy
of the Government Order dated 13.09.2021
issued
by
the
Secretary,
Finance
(Institutional) U.P. Govt. Lucknow is being
filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
NO.1 to this affidavit.

6. That, it is further most
respectfully submitted that in compliance
of the order dated February 10, 2022
passed by Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition
No. 1755/2022 Bank of Baroda Versus
District Magistrate Maharajganj and others,
again
the
Finance
Department
has
Government Order No.41 B/V.(San.) Anu35-2021 dated 11 February, 2022, wherein
direction have been issued to all the District
Magistrates, Uttar Pradesh and others to
ensure
strict
compliance
of
earlier
Government Order dated 13.09.2021 issued
by the Secretary Finance (institutional)
Govt. of U.P. Lucknow in compliance of
the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in WRIT PETITION (C)
No.7126/2021 Indian Bank (Allahabad
Bank) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court, the copy of the Government Order
dated 11.02.2022, issued by the Finance
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO.2 to this
affidavit."

5. Annexure-1 to the aforequoted
affidavit is reproduced below:-

"सुंख्या-533 बी०/ णव०(सुं०) अनु०35-2021

प्रेषक,

सुंजय कुमार,

सणचव,

उ०प्र० शासन।

सेवा में,

1. समस्त णजलाणिकारी,

उत्तर प्रदेश।

2.
ऋि
वसूली
अपीलीय
न्यायाणिकरि,

प्रयागराज l

णवत्त (सुंस्थागत) अनुभाग-35

लखनऊ: णदनाुंक: 13 णसतम्बर, 2021

णवषय-
णसक्योररटाइजेशन
एुंड
ररकुंस्टरक्शन ऑफ फाइनेंणशयल एसेट्स एुंड
एनफोसटमेंट ऑफ णसक्योररटी इुंटरेस्ट एक्ट
(सरफेसी अणिणनयम) 2002 की िारा-14 के
तहत कायटवाही णकए जाने के सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,

उपयुटक्त
णवषयक
स्थायी
अणिवक्ता मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के
पत्र
सुं०-णसणवल/डब्ल्यू
4317सी
णदनाुंक
02.09.2021 (छायाप्रणत सुंलग्न) का कृपया सुंदभट
िहि करने का कि करें, णजसके माध्यम से मा०
उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पाररत णनिटय
णदनाुंक 24.08.2021 के क्रम में समस्त
णजलाणिकाररयोुं के साथ-साथ ऋि वसूली
अपीलीय
न्यायाणिकरि
को
सरफेसी
अणिणनयम-2002 की िारा-14 के तहत णदशा-
णनदेश जारी णकए जाने के णनदेश णदये गये हैं l

2- अतः इस सम्बन्ध में मुझे यह
कहने का णनदेश हआ है णक कृपया अपने-अपने
णजलोुं में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के
आदेश णदनाुंक 24.08.2021 के क्रम में सरफेसी
अणिणनयम-2002 की िारा-14 के तहत दायर
सभी लज्यम्बत प्रकरिोुं पर णवशेष अणभयान
चलाकर प्राथणमकता के आिार पर 30 णदनोुं
(यणद णकसी प्रकार की कोई कानूनी/णवणिक
बािा न हो तो) के अन्दर णनस्ताररत करने की
कायटवाही सुणनणित कराने का कि करें।

सुंलग्नकः यथोक्त। l

भवदीय,
 (सुंजय कुमार)

सणचव ।"

6. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no.1/District
Magistrate,
Maharajganj
by
Shri
Vivekanand
Dubey,
posted
as
Naib
Tehsildar, Nautanwa, District Maharajganj,
it has been stated that on 04.05.2017, the
file was transferred by the respondent no.1
to the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Maharajganj for
'expedite' disposal, which has been decided
on 14.02.2022. It has further been stated
that during pendency of the case in the
court of the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue) Maharajganj, the
debtor has filed Writ-C No.22486 of 2017
in which, by an order dated 22.05.2017, the
debtor was directed to pay the outstanding
amount of the bank in four installments, i.e.
30.06.2017,
31.10.2017,
28.02.2018,
30.06.2018. It is stated that no amount was
3 All. Bank of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur Vs. D.M., Maharajganj & Ors.
671
paid by the borrower on the said dates. It is
further stated that due to COVID-19, the
judicial work was suspended in the last
years. A copy of the order dated
14.02.2022 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (F & R) Maharajganj as
well as the copy of the judgment and order
dated
22.05.2017
passed
in
Writ-C
No.22486 of 2017 have been enclosed with
this counter affidavit.

7. The enclosures to the personal
affidavit of the Chief Secretary reveal that a
Government Order dated 13.09.2021 was
issued by the Secretary, Government of
Uttar Pradesh directing all the District
Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh to decide all
the pending cases under Section 14 of the
Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short
'SARFAESI Act') within 30 days (in case
there is no legal impediment to the same)
pursuant to the judgment dated 24.08.2021
passed by this Court. Further, the second
enclosure is another Government Order
issued by the Special Secretary to the
Government of U.P. dated 11.02.2022 to all
the District Magistrates directing strict
compliance of the Government Order dated
13.09.2021 issued pursuant to the judgment
and order dated 24.08.2021 passed in WritC No.7126 of 2021.

8. The judgment of this Court dated
24.08.2021 has already been quoted above.
A specific direction has been issued to all
the District Magistrates of the State to keep
a record/register of all the pending
applications filed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act that may clearly disclose
to the District Magistrate (on a fortnightly
basis) details of all institutions of such
applications made in that district and their
disposal within time. Further directions in
the judgment are as follows:-

"The said register may be duly
inspected by the District Magistrate from
time to time and also countersigned by
him. Based on the entries recorded in
such register, a quarterly report of all
institution of applications filed under
Section 14 of the Act together with the
length of pendency of each application be
sent to the Registrar General of this Court
in the tabular form that may indicate the
requirement of the Act is being fulfilled,
in letter and spirit, who shall place the
same before the appropriate Committee
dealing with the functioning of the Debt
Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunals."

9. There is nothing on record to
demonstrate that the District Magistrates are
maintaining
record/registers
and
are
monitoring the disposal of applications filed
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
District Magistrate in the case in hand reflects
that by an order dated 22.05.2017, this Court
in Writ-C No.22486 of 2017 directed further
proceedings against the respondent no.2 to be
kept in abeyance with liberty to deposit the
demanded amount with up-to-date interest
with four equal installments with the last
installment to be paid by 30.06.2018. It has
nowhere been stated in the counter affidavit
that the application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act could not be disposed of by
the
authority
concerned
for
want
of
information regarding non-compliance of the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
22.05.2017 passed by this Court in Writ- C
No.22486 of 2017. Rather, it has been stated
that due to COVID-19, the judicial work was
suspended in the last years.
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Such a conduct by the authority,
charged with deciding/disposing of the
applications filed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, cannot but be said to be
action taken pursuant to the order dated
10.02.2022 passed by this Court in the
present writ petition. It is evident that the
Government Order dated 13.09.2021, that
has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the
personal affidavit filed by the Chief
Secretary has been neglected by the
respondent-authority/the authority seized of
the
case
under
Section
14 of
the
SARFAESI Act.

11. This Court is dealing with several
writ petitions every week being filed by
secured creditors seeking directions to the
District
Magistrate
for
deciding
applications under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act.

12. Under the circumstances, it is for
the Chief Secretary of the State to take a
serious look at the state of affairs and ensure
compliance of the judgment and order dated
24.08.2021 passed by this Court as well as
the Government Orders issued by the
Government itself and take suitable action for
violation of the same. We also direct the
Chief Secretary of State of Uttar Pradesh to
also ensure compliance of those directions in
the judgment dated 24.08.2021 which are
highlighted in bold letters above.

13. Learned counsel for the petitionerbank has submitted that in view of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
District Magistrate, the cause of action does
not survive.

14.

Therefore,
subject
to
the
directions made above for appropriate
action by the Chief Secretary of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, this writ petition is disposed
of.
----------
(2022)03ILR A672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ C No. 28617 of 2021

M/s Sayeed Absar Bidi Works, Alld. & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Bhagwati Prasad
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Biological Diversity Act, 2002 - Biological
Diversity Rules, 2004 - Guidelines on
Access
to
Biological
Resources
and
Associated
Knowledge
and
Benefits
Sharing Regulations, 2014 - U.P. Tendu
Patta
(Vyapar
Viniyaman
Adhiniyam)
Adhiniyam, 1972 - both the Acts namely
Tendu Patta Act, 1972 and the Biological
Diversity Act, 2002 operate in different
fields - fields/areas occupied by them are
not overlapping - Registration in Tendu
Patta Act, 1972 would not exclude the
petitioners from the purview of the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002, to share the
benefits
obtained
from
biological
resources used for commercial purposes,
to contribute to the fund for conservation
of
biological
diversity
and
ensure
sustenance of its components - As per
section 59 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002
provisions of the 2002 Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of, the
provisions in any other law, for the time