IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4916 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 38 S/O.K.V.ABDULLA HAJI, ASHARAF MANZIL PERUVALATH PARAMBA, IRIKKOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.C.ARIFA, AGED 31, W/O.ASHRAF ASHARAF MANZIL, PERUVALATH PARAMBA, IRIKKOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE SREEKANDAPURAM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. R4 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2, 3 AND 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4916 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in CMP 615/07 exercising the power under sec.14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the power is available only to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a District Magistrate and not to a Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2. This contention has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in Solaris Systems Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Oriental Bank of Commerce and another - 2006 (2) KLJ 312. In paragraph 7 of the judgment it has been held as follows:- “But the above contention, in my view, is totally misconceived and untenable. It may be true that Ernakulam/Kochi has not been declared a Metropolitan area and therefore going by the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Code of Criminal WP(C) 4916/08 Page numbers Procedure, the Judicial Magistrates in Ernakulam are not designated as Metropolitan Magistrates. In every District (not being a Metropolitan area) there shall be a Chief Judicial Magistrate to be appointed by the High Court from among the Judicial Magistrates of First Class (Section 12 of the Code). If the area is declared as Metropolitan, the judicial Magistrates will be designated as Metropolitan Magistrates. The High Court shall appoint a Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such Metropolitan area (Section 17). Obviously therefore a Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non Metropolitan area stands on the same footing as a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and he is vested with all powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a Metropolitan area. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is not entitled to exercise the powers under Section 14 of the Act is liable to be rejected. I do so.” 3. I do not think there is anything warranting a view other than what is already taken by the learned Single Judge. Following the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-