Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner challenges an order dated 18th May, 2016 passed by the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, Hooghly whereby the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly has been directed to ensure adequate police assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Such order has been passed purportedly in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 14 empowers the District Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset and documents relating thereto and not the creditor or the police to take possession thereof. The District Magistrate cannot facilitate taking over possession of the secured asset by the creditor bank. In this connection, learned counsel relied on a decision, dated 24th February, 2014, of this Court delivered in WP 2545(w) of 2014 (Pratima Roy & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent bank refers to an order dated 24th August, 2015 passed in an earlier writ petition whereby the writ petitioner herein has been granted liberty to file appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He submits that in view of such liberty the present writ application should not be entertained.;