ORDER Shylendra Kumar, J The Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 which followed the ordinance prior to the Act coming into force was enacted by the State with the sole object of extending the relief to a class of debtors. Unfortunately, instead of getting the relief, it has only resulted in harassment and victimization of such debtors. This writ petition is one such classical case of harassment of the debtor who figures as second respondent in this writ petition. 2. Petitioners have called in question the legality of the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore [copy at Annexure-J] acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 [for short 'the Act'] directing the first petitioner to produce before the authority within ten days from the date of the order thirteen items of gold jewellery said to have been restored in favour of the first petitioner by the authority, pending proceedings under the Act. 3. Petitioners have questioned this direction on various grounds contending that it is liable to be quashed; that even without any determination as to whether the articles belonged to the debtor and are liable to be returned by the petitioners to the debtor a direction of this nature is issued; that this direction is clearly in the teeth of the earlier determination by this court in writ appeal No.1910 of1993 [copy at Annexure-A] in terms of the Judgment dated 7.2.1997; that it should be quashed; that the order is also bad for the reason that the authority has not given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to appear and defend the matter etc. 4. Sri. Manjunath, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought for quashing of this order and for directions to the authority to dispose of the matter at the earliest. 5. Submission is that the petitioners had objected to the production of thirteen items of gold jewellery even as per the objections filed in the year 200 I; that they are not with the petitioners; that unless there is finding recorded that the articles belonged to a debtor who had pledged these articles with the creditor for repayment of the loan borrowed by the petitioner, the authority could not have issued directions of this nature etc. 6. Notice had been issued. Respondents have entered appearance. 6. Notice had been issued. Respondents have entered appearance. Respondents 1 & 4 - statutory authorities are represented by Smt. Sarojini Muthanna K, learned Additional Government Advocate, respondents 2 & 3 are represented by Smt. Parineeta S. Chanal, learned counsel. 7. 1 notice that the matter has unnecessarily received excessive attention by this court even before the authority has adjudicated on the application filed by the debtor way back in the year 1976 in terms of his application which had come to be registered as RDC No.1/ 1976-77 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. 8. The writ petitioner had earlier approached this court questioning the legality of a seizure mahazar where under a large number of jewellery and other articles had been seized from the premises of the first petitioner's father contending that \t was without authority etc. 9. While the petitioners did meet with success in challenging the legality of the seizure and therefore this court directed restoration, in terms of Annexure-B - mahazar copy produced before this court along with this writ petition, it is noticed that as many as 172 items of gold jewellery seized earlier had been returned to the custody and possession of the first petitioner comprised in six bundles and another 18 items of gold jewellary had also been returned. The mahazar, returning the articles indicated that the 18 items were items in respect of which there were multiple claims by the debtors. Many other silver articles had also been returned. 10. The stand of the petitioners is that the thirteen items which have been directed to be produced do not form part of the articles, taken back by the petitioner. 11. I find it is most unfortunate that an application filed by the debtor in the year 1976 remains without being adjudicated till date and the petitioners in the meanwhile had approached this court on three earlier rounds of writ litigation and the present writ petition is fourth such round. Defending the litigation of this nature by a poor debtor is nothing but harassment notice that the victim of this litigation is only the second respondent who appears to have made an application for restoration of her pledged articles in terms of the provisions of the Act and which has not been done so far. It is not even examined by any authority. It is not even examined by any authority. An examination of this nature could not have taken more than a couple of weeks, but the matter remains pending even after thirty-two years which is only a very poor reflection on the system and the efficiency of the system. 12. In response to the notice, on behalf of the debtor - the second respondent, learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of objections that had been filed on behalf of this respondent in the earlier round of litigation at the instance of the very petitioner in writ petition Nos.16104-16105 of 1999 and in that statement of objections copies of the notices that had been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the proceedings at the instance of the second respondent had been produced as Annexures - A & B to the objections and therefore it is very obvious that in respect of the items that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has called upon the petitioners to produce, the proceedings at the instance of the second respondent is very much pending. 13. Be that as it may as the petitioners have contended that the thirteen items directed to be now produced before the authority does not form part of the articles that she has taken back with an understanding that it will be produced as and when called upon in terms of Annexure-B - mahazar. It is for the authority to verify this aspect and if it does not figure so decide as to what other action is required to be taken under the provisions of the Act. It is for the authority to decide in the pending proceedings, the entitlement of the second respondent to seek returning the articles in terms of section 4/5 of the Act. 14. It is not necessary to keep this matter pending before this court for further examination as I find prima facie the order of this nature even for keeping the articles under safe custody pending adjudication as to whether the articles are to be returned to the debtor or otherwise, can be passed or direction issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in terms of the provisions of section 5[9] of the Act which reads as under: 5. Creditors to file statement, etc.,:- [9] Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-Section, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate [or the Executive Magistrate, as the case may be] may on application made by a debtor or otherwise, enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize articles pledged by debtors and arrange/or their safe custody. Thereafter he shall proceed to determine which of the articles so seized, are to be released to the debtor and pass orders accordingly. 15. Though Sri. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this aspect .of the matter had been gone into earlier and cannot be examined yet again, particularly, the single Bench of this court having noticed and that order having been affirmed in the writ appeal in the Judgment under Annexure-A, 1 find that the learned single Judge and division Bench had proceeded on the premise that there was not any application nor any proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at that time. May be that was the factual and legal position then as the act of seizure was even before initiation of any proceedings under the Act by the sub-divisional magistrate at the instance .of any debtor. But the present direction as per Annexure' J' order being undisputed by subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings in the year 1976, at the instance of the second respondent the order at annexure' J' does not suffer from the very infirmity noticed by this court earlier. In fact, the pending proceedings at the instance of the second respondent was brought to the notice of this court in the subsequent round of writ litigation at the instance of the petitioners subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal by the division Bench. 16. Prima facie, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has the jurisdiction to search and seize articles pledged by the debtor and arrange for safe custody and the provision specifically enables the authority to thereafter proceed to determine which of the seized articles are to be released to the debtor and to pass order accordingly. The impugned order is not one with out jurisdiction in the present case but well supported by the statutory provisions. 17. The impugned order is not one with out jurisdiction in the present case but well supported by the statutory provisions. 17. It is for this reason, there is absolutely no need to quash the impugned order but on the other hand directions are issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate - competent authority under the Act to complete the proceedings on the application of the 2nd respondent to hear and dispose of the matter at the earliest. 18. Petitioners to appear before the authority with the articles indicated in the notice/order at annexure 'J' dated 27.11.2006 if she is in possession of such articles on 3.11.2008 at 10.30 am at the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore and to attend the proceedings in RDC No. 1/1976-77 before that authority. But the petitioner and the second respondent to appear before the authority without any further notice from the authority. It is for the authority to hear them or to fix further dates but to dispose of the matter within three months thereafter. 19. It is for the authority to examine as to whether the petitioners if are not producing the articles on the premise that the thirteen articles called upon to be produced were not forming part of the articles returned to the petitioners, to verify that aspect and if it is found that the articles are in fact found in the list and the petitioners are still not producing the same, to take such other action as is open to the authority in accordance with law, but independent of this action, the authority is required to adjudicate upon the application of the second respondent and to pass orders on the same within three months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the authority. 20. Writ petition is disposed of with such directions.