Case Note & Summary
This judgment concerned a batch of writ petitions filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, by financial institutions, namely Jana Small Finance Bank Limited and Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, against the State of Rajasthan, police authorities, and private borrowers. The lead petition was S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10026/2026; connected petitions involved similar facts and were heard together. The petitioners were secured creditors registered under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The private respondents had availed financial assistance by mortgaging secured assets but failed to repay loans as per schedule. Consequently, the financial institutions invoked Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, followed by proceedings under Section 13(4). They filed applications under Section 14 before the concerned District Magistrate, who by order dated 16.09.2025 in the lead case, allowed physical possession and directed police assistance. Physical possession was taken and handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the borrowers allegedly re-entered the secured premises unauthorisedly. The petitioners contended that such re-entry was dishonest and malafide, amounting to overreaching the process of law. They sought directions from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer to restore possession and take necessary action. The police authorities opposed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act and could seek appropriate directions from the Magistrate who passed the initial Section 14 order. In rejoinder, the petitioners argued that the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 14 was administrative, not adjudicatory, and that repeated orders under Section 14 were neither permissible nor desirable. They asserted that once the order was passed, police authorities were duty-bound to protect the secured creditor's possession. The core legal issue framed by the court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 would be maintainable when the borrower forcibly re-enters the secured asset in violation of a Section 14 order, or whether the alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act bars such writ. The court reproduced the text of Section 14(1) and (2) for consideration. The available judgment text ends after this reproduction; it does not include the final reasoning or operative order. Therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi are not available from the provided excerpt. The court had heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The matter was reportable and decided on 30/06/2026.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Article 226 Writ Against Borrower Re-entry After Section 14 SARFAESI Possession - Constitution of India, Article 226; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 14, 14(1), 14(2) - The core issue was whether a secured creditor could file a writ petition under Article 226 when the borrower had forcibly re-entered the secured asset after physical possession was handed over under an order under Section 14, or whether the creditor was relegated to alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The court identified this as the core question, noting that possession had been lawfully obtained and borrowers had unauthorizedly re-entered. The court reproduced Section 14(1) and (2) for interpretation but the available text does not include the final decision (Paras 11-12). B) Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction - Enforcement of Security Interest - Duty of Police Authorities to Protect Possession - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 14 - The petitioner contended that after the District Magistrate's order under Section 14 and handing over of possession, the police authorities were under a legal obligation to protect the secured creditor's possession and restore it if borrowers re-entered. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Act and could seek directions from the Magistrate. The court noted these rival contentions and framed the issue for decision (Paras 6-9). C) Administrative Law - Nature of Magistrate's Jurisdiction Under Section 14 - Administrative vs Adjudicatory Power - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 14 - The petitioner rejoined that jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative in nature and not adjudicatory, therefore repeated orders under Section 14 are neither permissible nor desirable. The court considered this submission in the context of maintainability of the writ petition and the extent of the Magistrate's power to order police assistance (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when the borrower forcibly re-enters the secured asset after possession has been handed over to the secured creditor pursuant to an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act; and whether the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative or adjudicatory.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (the provided judgment text ends before the final operative order; the court framed the core issue and reproduced Section 14 but no final decision is included).
Law Points
- Writ petition under Article 226 maintainability
- SARFAESI Section 14 order administrative
- police duty to protect possession
- alternative remedy under SARFAESI
- Section 13(4) enforcement
- District Magistrate assistance
- secured creditor possession
- unauthorized re-entry by borrower
