J.B. Pardiwala JUDGMENT
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioner has prayed for declaration that the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are ultra vires the Constitution of India and has also' prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated January 30, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as under.
1.1 The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are its Directors. The petitioners availed of loan facility from respondent No. 2-Bank and as they failed to repay the loan amount, they were declared as defaulters. As the petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the Bank decided to proceed against them under the Act. The Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and called upon the petitioners to make good the payment failing which the Bank would proceed to take over the possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the Act. It appears from record that the petitioners being aggrieved by the measures taken by the Bank under the Act preferred an application under Section 17 of the Act in the form of an appeal. The appeal is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 at Ahmedabad. Record reveals that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad refused to grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioners vide order dated October 10, 2011. Against the said order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ahmedabad, refusing to grant any relief, the petitioners have preferred an appeal being No. 65 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai under Section 18 of the Act. The appeal is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. It appears that in the meantime, the Bank preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Surat, requesting to provide for police protection for the purpose of taking over of the actual possession of the secured assets. The District Magistrate, Surat vide order dated January 30, 2012 directed the Police Inspector of the concerned Police Station to provide for necessary assistance for the purpose of taking over of the possession of the secured assets.
2. The petitioners as original borrowers-defaulters are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act directing that necessary police protection and force be provided to the authorities of the Bank for the purpose of taking over of the actual physical possession of the secured assets, which were mortgaged by the petitioners at the time of availing of the, loan facility.
3. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of Section 14 of the Act on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
4. We, therefore, first propose to deal with the contention of the writ-petitioners that the provision of Section 14 of the Act is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
5. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Vishvas K. Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioners at length. We have also perused the materials on record.
6. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
6.1 The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ- petitioners has strenuously contended before us that the said provision is ultra vires the C........