VBC 1 wp7483.11-14.9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7483 OF 2011 Tatyasaheb Kore Warana Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. ..Petitioner. versus Collector of Kohapur & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.P.S.Dani with Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Petitioner. Mr.Sameer N.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sushil Nimbkar for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. September 14, 2011. P.C. : The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, filed by the Petitioner on 10 August 2011. However, considering the fact that there is a vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT at Mumbai and that concurrent charge has been give to the Chairperson of the DRAT at Kolkata, the Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect VBC 2 wp7483.11-14.9 of the secured asset until the period of filing an appeal against its order was over. The Petitioner has filed an appeal before the DRAT. The Court is informed that the application for interim relief in the appeal is to be taken up tomorrow. The reason for moving these proceedings, the Court is informed, is that in the meantime, the Collector at Kolhapur, who is the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, has passed an order authorising the Sub Divisional Officer to take possession and the SDO has furnished a notice for taking over possession on 19 September 2011. Since the Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the DRAT, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the challenge to the order passed by the Collector under Section 14 on 5 September 2011. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Trade Well Vs. Indian Banks1 the nature of the enquiry by the Collector is limited. The Collector has to consider only as to whether (i) A notice under Section 13(2) has been furnished; and (ii) Whether the secured asset lies within his jurisdiction. The remedy of the party who is aggrieved by the measure under Section 13(4) is to move the Tribunal under Section 1 (2007) All Mah,Law R. (Crii) 1357 VBC 3 wp7483.11-14.9 17. Consequently, we decline to entertain the challenge to the order under Section 14. However, a peculiar circumstance has emerged as a result of the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT at Mumbai requiring the parties to move the Chairperson at Kolkata, who has concurrent charge. Since the proceedings are listed before the DRAT at Kolkata tomorrow, we dispose of this Petition by directing that the First and Second Respondents shall not take forcible possession of the secured asset for a period of one week from today or until the DRAT disposes of the application for interim relief whichever is earlier. In the event that the DRAT at Kolkata is unable due to the exigencies of its work to take up the application for interim relief, it would be open to the Chairperson to pass further ad­interim orders as he deems fit and proper. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A. A. Sayed, J.)