- (1.) The petitioner in this Art. 226 petition dated July 9, 2010 is questioning the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Dev.), Hooghly dated November 13, 2009 (at p. 33) under S. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) The order was made on the basis of a S. 14 application dated April 7, 2009 filed by the Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Small & Medium Enterprises Branch, Kolkata. The relevant part of the order is quoted below: " .......the undersigned on due notice to all the parties gave opportunity of being heard to them and heard the case on 11-9-2009 and finally decided that the case has merit and unless due Police Assistance is not given to the Creditor Applicant while taxing possession of the Asset/Property by the Creditor Applicant, there may occur Law & Order problem and breach of peace on the spot. Hence ordered that on requisition from the Creditor Applicant, the Superintendent of Police Hooghly shall arrange for and ensure adequate Police Assistance in taking physical possession of the Asset/Property by the Creditor Applicant personally or through authorized agents in accordance with law."
(3.) It is evident from the order that the petitioner was named therein as one of the three borrowers, and that a copy of the order was forwarded to him by a memo dated November 13, 2009. It is also evident that the borrowers named in the order had been served with notice of the application and were heard by the Additional District Magistrate (Dev.), Hooghly.;