IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8309 of 2011 Sukhdev Shankar Patil. .. Petitioner. versus District Magistrate, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 10 October 2011. P.C. : The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector at Kolhapur under Section 14 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tradewell vs. Indian Bank 2007 1 the District Magistrate has only to consider two aspects (i) Whether a notice under Section 13 (2) has been furnished to the borrower; and (ii) Whether the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate. In the present case, admittedly, both the requirements were satisfied. As a matter of fact, there is no occasion when the Magistrate passes an order under Section 14 to even hear the borrower. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. The remedy of the borrower is to move the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. No interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. Dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.) 1 2007 (1) Bom. Cri. 783