S. Lalitha vs District Collector

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27-10-2014 passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate in exercise of his power under provisions of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act 2002").

The facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner has obtained the housing loan with the Trichy Branch of the ICICI Home Finance Company Limited on 08-07-2003 to the extent of Rs.6,85,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty five thousand only) payable in 204 months in equal instalments. The petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.2,31,072/-(Rupees Two lakhs thirty one thousand seventy two only) till 2007. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act 2002, calling upon her to deposit the balance amount of Rs.12,04,964.85/-(Rupees Twelve lakhs four thousand nine hundred sixty four and eighty five paise only)with interest. It appears that no balance amount was deposited and as a sequel, the petitioner was served with a possession notice.

The petitioner was offered with an opportunity for one time settlement vide communication dated 28-04-2011. But the same was not complied with and as such, the petitioner was served with a sale notice on 20-12-2012, informing her that the secured asset shall be put into auction after a period of 30 days from the date of the notice, under provisions of Rule 8 Sub-rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

The petitioner has not taken any steps to make good the default on her part, to make payment of the balance amount. Consequently, on the application made by the secured creditor, the impugned order was passed by the District Collector-cum- District Magistrate directing the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal as Nodal Officer to take possession of the property and to handover the same to the Officer of the Bank.

The petitioner questions the legality of the said order on the ground that the District Magistrate delegated the powers to the Deputy Collector to take over possession which is contrary to the provisions of law. Secondly, the District Magistrate ought to have exercised a greater restraint in deciding the matter. In fact, the petitioner has not made any substantial point indicating any violation of provisions of law.

However, the Division Bench, on 23-12-2014, considering the offer of the petitioner, granted one more opportunity to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) with the third respondent within a period of two weeks from 23-12-2014. The petitioner had failed to do the needful.

We have considered the pleadings and entire facts of the case. In the case on hand, the petitioner was given opportunity right from the day she received the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act 2002, for making the payment. The petitioner was thereafter, further granted an opportunity for settlement of the loan by communication dated 28-04-2011, and the petitioner had full information with regard to the auction of the property and also about taking cognizance of the matter by the District Magistrate on an application made by the secured creditor. The petitioner has not taken any steps even to satisfy by depositing at least a part of the payment. The contention that the direction to the Deputy Collector to take over possession of the property in question is contrary to the provisions of law, is necessarily to be rejected as the process of securing possession of the property in question, has to be done either by an authority or Advocate Commissioner and as such, there is no illegality. In respect of the second contention, i.e., the District Magistrate exercising greater restraint, there is no material to prove that the District Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction.

At this stage, no case has been made out to show that there is any infringement of any statutory provisions of law and as such, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.