Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Kartick Chandra Dhar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
25-04-2017
S.D.
WP 10879 (W) of 2017
Sri Kartick Chandra Dhar
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kali
Mr. Mitul Chakraborti
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Sudeep Pal
...For the Respondent/Bank.
Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee ....For the State.
An order dated March 22, 2017 passed by an Additional District Magistrate purporting to act under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the Additional District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without a corresponding notification authorizing him to do so by the State being issued under the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2The State is represented.
Learned Advocate for the bank submits that, the District Magistrate is entitled to dispose of an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. In terms of Section 14 (1A) of the Act of 2002, a District Magistrate can authorize a sub-ordinate to take steps. In the present case, according to him, the District Magistrate has passed an order authorizing the Additional District Magistrate by a writing of 2014.
The secured creditor had taken steps under the provisions of 2002. The secured creditor had applied under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 14, the District Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, is required to consider such application in accordance with law. Reading Section 14(1) along with Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, one can reasonably infer that, when the State notifies an Additional District Magistrate to discharge the same functions as that of the District Magistrate in respect of a particular district, then the Additional District Magistrate is competent to deal with an application under Section 14(1) of the Act, 2002. In the present 3 case, such notification has not been produced before the Court. The writing of 2014 of the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate is not a notification issued by the State in terms of Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The impugned order had been passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The Additional District Magistrate, therefore, has acted without jurisdiction in invoking Section 14 of the Act, 2002 as it was not empowered to do so.
The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. This order will not prevent the bank from taking appropriate steps under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 in accordance with law.
W.P. No. 10879 (W) of 2017 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
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.) 4