- (1.) Referring to para 30 of the Article 226 petition Mr. Adhikari, Additional Advocate General, contends that it is not maintainable. Paragraph 30 of the petition is quoted below: 30. Thus being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the long pendency of the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, the Petitioner begs to move this Hon'ble Court on, amongst others, the following....
(2.) I agree with Mr. Adhikari that with the grievances stated in para 30 the Petitioner cannot move the High Court under Article 226. Power under Article 226 is not to be exercised for directing the High Court to appoint a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court is to appoint the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in administrative capacity. The power under Article 226 is not to be exercised by a Judge of the Court for directing the Chief Justice, to appoint a Judicial Officer to any vacant office or post.
(3.) As to the submission that the Section 14 application is pending for a long time, I am of the opinion that if the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not available, the Petitioner was free to move the officer who was discharging the duties of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. But non-availability of the Chief-Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be a ground to decide the Section 14 application by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.;