District Magistrate directed to conclude Section 14 SARFAESI proceedings within mandatory statutory timelines.

The Petitioner Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the borrower (Respondent No. 2) after the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA)

On 22.12.2025, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 1), seeking assistance in taking possession of the secured assets

The application was registered as Revenue Case No. 202512072100018/B-121

However, the District Magistrate failed to pass orders on the application despite the lapse of approximately two and a half months

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the timely disposal of the said application

Whether the District Magistrate is bound by the statutory timelines prescribed under the provisos to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for deciding applications filed by secured creditors

Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

The second and third provisos to Section 14 mandate that the District Magistrate must pass orders on an application for possession within 30 days from the date of application

If orders cannot be passed within 30 days for reasons beyond control, the Magistrate may extend the period after recording reasons in writing, provided the total period does not exceed 60 days in aggregate

The Court examined the timeline of the pending Revenue Case and noted that although the application was filed on 22.12.2025, it remained undecided for over 75 days

The Court observed that Section 14 establishes a mandatory procedural framework where the Magistrate, upon satisfaction of the accompanying affidavit's contents, must act within a 30-to-60-day window

The Court held that the District Magistrate’s failure to conclude the proceedings within this aggregate period was "not in accordance with law" and could not be appreciated

The Court emphasized that the statutory mandate requires recording reasons for any delay beyond the initial 30 days, which was not evident in the present case

The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (District Magistrate, Bilaspur) to conclude the proceedings in Revenue Case No. 202512072100018/B-121 within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions