1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents No.2 to 6 to take action against the trespassers. It is further argued that a direction be given to the respondents to take appropriate steps to get the premises vacated from the borrowers and to restore the possession of the secured assets to the petitioner.

2. An order was passed in favour of the petitioner/bank under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act', 2002) for restoration of secured assets.

3. In pursuant to the said order, the Tehsildar, Anjad, District-Barwani (MP) had taken possession on 04.12.2024 of secured assets and handed over the same to the authorized officer of the petitioner/bank. It is further alleged that after handing over the possession, the borrowers in violation of the said order had broken the lock of the secured assets and put seal on it and had trespassed the said property. A complaint dated 06.12.2024 has been made against the trespassers before the respondents No.2 to 4 but no action has been taken, hence the present petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of this petition in light of judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Yes Bank Limited through its Authorized Representative vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in Writ Petition No.37182 of 2024 decided on 29.11.2024 . Counsel has also placed reliance on the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.6805 of 2023 decided on 30.06.2023 and also the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in the case of Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.333 of 2024.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and has argued that once the possession was handed over to the secured creditor in pursuance to the order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Officer becomes functus Officio restoration of possession. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of AU Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 06.01.2025 wherein it has been held that the proceedings under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act will come to an end once the order passed by the Collector has been given effect to, it is for the creditor to protect possession of the said property.

6. The petitioner argued that the Bombay High Court in the case of Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (supra) has taken a view that even if the borrower takes possession by dispossessing the banks after they have obtained the orders under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act then also the physical possession has to be handed over to them. He has referred to para 6 of the said judgment (supra) as under:-

"For the sake of reference, one such decision is in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (in Writ Petition No.6805 of 2023 decided on 30th June 2023). In paragraph 13, this Court has clearly opined that borrowers have devised a novel, unimaginable and unsustainable modus operandi to defeat the ends of justice. It is not only a matter of open the lock and seal affixed on the secured asset which is wholly illegal, but the same would also tantamount to an assault on the law and the statute itself. If, after orders are passed under section 14 (for dispossession of the borrower), the same are inter- meddled with by any person including the borrower, the same would result in a mockery of the rule of law. In such a situation, this court cannot and should not remain a mute spectator and allow the illegality to continue. The tendency of trying to over reach the law as well as the orders passed by judicial authorities has to be nipped in the bud right away, lest the rule of law shall suffer."

7. Without addressing to the aforesaid submissions, we find that the judgment relied by the counsel for the respondents in the case of AU Small Bank Finance Limited (supra) by the Coordinate Bench is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Upon perusal of the said order, we noticed that the said petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and to restore the physical possession of the mortgaged property. In that context, after considering the judgment in the case of Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited in Writ Petition No.30881 of 2024 had taken a view that the proceedings under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act will come to an end once the order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate has been given effect to. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench has further held that no fresh direction can be issued to the respondents again for compliance of the said order and it is for the borrower to protect the possession of the said property and if the borrower has violated the law, the petitioner is free to take action in accordance with law.

8. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to take action against the trespassers on the complaint made to them but no action was taken, thus, in the present petition no relief is claimed to comply the order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act once it was already executed. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents for not taking any action on the complaint made by him and therefore the judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case of AU Small Finance Bank Limited (supra) would not be applicable in the present case.

9. In-fact the present petition is as per the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the case of AU Small Finance Bank Limited. In para 8, it is reiterated that if the borrower has violated the law, the petitioner has to take action in accordance with law. Thus, it is held that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of AU Small Finance Bank Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. The present petition is disposed of in light of the directions given by this Court in the case of M/s. Yes Bank Limited, the respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Barwani and respondent No.5 - Additional District Magistrate, Barwani shall rise to the occasion and consider the prayer of the petitioner in right perspective and in promptitude manner in accordance with law on filing the copy of order passed today by the petitioner before them.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.