1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3222/2007 ( Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Manager .. V/s.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary & others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.B. Patil, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.D. Chopde, Adv. for respondent no.3. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Adv. for respondent no.4. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 28 th JUNE, 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition the petitioner has made following prayers - “ (i) Respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Yavatmal, to take immediate action under section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and thereby take the possession of secured assets i.e. all the movable assets such as goods, vehicles etc. and all immovable assets such as land, building, plant and machinery of the respondent no.3 and hand over the same to the petitioner. (ii) Grant any other relief which is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.” There is no dispute that the petitioner is a secured 2 creditor and in view thereof, they approached the District Magistrate, Yavatmal under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”). Since the District Magistrate, who is also Collector was not passing any order on their application, they have approached this Court by way of this petition for seeking direction as reflected in the aforesaid prayer clause. It is submitted that with the intervention of the Government and involvement of the petitioner the Sudhakarrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was let out to Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and as a part of understanding the lessee ( Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.) has started depositing about Rs.60,00,000/- per annum with the Liquidator. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to claim the said amount from the Liquidator. According to the petitioner the Liquidator has not paid any amount to them till this date. We do not wish to enter into any such controversy. We have perused the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, so also the judgment of this Court in Trade Well & anr. ..V/s. Indian Bank & anr. reported in 2007(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.)783. 3 From perusal of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and the judgment relied upon by Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order. (a) Respondent no.2 – Collector/District Magistrate, Yavatmal is directed to consider and decide the application, filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today. We make it clear that we are neither granting nor refusing liberty to respondent nos.3 and 4 to intervene in those proceedings. But, if they apply for intervention, all contentions of the petitioner including that they do not have right to intervene are kept open. This, however, shall not preclude respondent nos.3 and 4 from availing any other remedy, as may be available in law, to protect their properties from being auctioned under the provisions of the Act. (b) Respondent no.2 - Collector/District Magistrate, Yavatmal shall deal with the application, filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the Act, on merits, in accordance with law. (bi) These directions shall not be construed to mean 4 that the rights of respondent nos.3 and 4, if any, to protect their properties are curtailed. (c) All contentions raised in the writ petition by the parties are kept open. (d) It is made clear that we have not examined the merits of the case. At this stage Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, invited our attention to the protection granted by this Court vide order dated 15/12/2008 in paragraph 16(e) and submitted that the similar protection be continued till the application under Section 14 of the said Act is disposed of by respondent no.2. Order accordingly. (e) If the order passed by respondent no.2 on the application filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the said Act is adverse to respondent nos.3 and 4, same shall be given effect to after two weeks from the date of passing of the order. (f) With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. Steno copy allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.