- (1.) Heard Shri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri Sandeep Arora for respondent no. 3-Bank.
(2.) Admittedly, late father of the petitioner took two loans from respondent no. 3-Bank and mortgaged the property bearing khasra no. 762, area 1128 sq. ft. situated in Rudrapur and another residential plot nos. 820 and 821, area 2128 sq. ft. as security to the said loans. The dispute in the present writ petition is in respect of the khasra no. 762. Late father of the petitioner defaulted in making repayment, as a result, proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2002') was initiated. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002 was issued and subsequently after notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002, the respondent-Bank made an application under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking assistance in taking possession of the secured asset. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.03.2016, impugned in this petition, allowed the application and directed the concerned police station to assist the Bank in taking over possession of the mortgaged property and Sub Divisional Magistrate was directed to make an inventory of the articles in the mortgaged property.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since Section 14 of the Act, 2002 only authorises either the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to entertain and pass orders on the application made under the said Section, as such, the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is patently without jurisdiction and is not liable to be sustained. It is further submitted that since Act, 2002 is a self contained code and the language of Section 14 is clear and unambiguous, no jurisdiction can be said to vest with the Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 14 of the Act. He further submits that the power is to be exercised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of the Act, the same cannot be delegated to a Chief Judicial Magistrate by giving a wider meaning to the nomenclature to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and if the Legislature has omitted the use of word 'Chief Judicial Magistrate', the Court cannot supply the omission and it can only interpret the law.;