Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Swadesh Chandra Saha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
26-04-2017
S.D.
WP 10875 (W) of 2017
Sri Swadesh Chandra Saha
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kali
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Susanta Kumar Pal
Mr. Prithwish Kumar Basu
....For the State.
Mr. Dipanjan Datta
Mrs. Rituparna Saha
...For the Bank of Baroda &
Respondent No. 7.
The petitioner assails an order dated March 20, 2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Nadia under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002 and Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and submits that the Additional District Magistrate has not been notified by the State to exercise jurisdiction under the 2 provisions of the Act of 2002. Consequently, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and should be set aside.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State makes over a notification dated September 14, 2016 issued by the District Magistrate purporting to give powers to the Additional District Magistrate to dispose of a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.
The bank is represented.
Learned Advocate for the bank submits that, the bank had applied before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate ought to have disposed of such application in accordance with law.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the material made available on record. Section 14 of the Act of 2002 empowers a District Magistrate to dispose of an application made to it in terms thereof. Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 permits the State Government to delegate the authority of the District Magistrate to an Additional District Magistrate or any other person in accordance with law by way of a notification. In the present case, the notification dated September 14, 2016 is not under Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is not a 3 notification issued by the State exercising power under Section 20 of the Act, 1973. The Notification dated September 14, 2016, therefore, can not be construed to be a valid delegation of authority by the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate. The impugned order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The Additional District Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to do so in view of Section 14 of the Act of 2002.
In such circumstances, the impugned order is bad. The same has been passed without jurisdiction by the Additional District Magistrate. The same is hereby set aside.
This order will not prevent the bank from pursuing its original to apply afresh under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the concerned District Magistrate for relief. In either of the two situations, the District Magistrate will consider and dispose of such application within four weeks from the date of communication of this order or within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the new application as the case may be.
W.P. No. 10875 (W) of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
4
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)