ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.:— Short counter affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Kushal Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.J. Munir has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28th June, 2012 passed by Additional District Magistrate, District Moradabad by which the application filed by the petitioner bank under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been rejected. 5. The bank filed an application before the District Magistrate being Application No. 71 of 2011 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 praying for appropriate directions be issued for taking possession of the secured assets. The notice was issued by the District Magistrate and the objections were filed by the respondents. One of the objection raised by the respondents was that the bank has already filed an application before the DRT for recovery of the amount which proceedings are still pending being O.A. No. 204 of 2011 hence, the bank has no authority to move an application under section 14. 6. Shri J.J. Munir, learned Counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that although the reasons given by the Additional District Magistrate for rejecting the application may not be appropriate, however, there were other objections which could ought to have considered by the Additional District Magistrate including that no proceedings could have been undertaken against agricultural land in view of the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 7. We have considered submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue that during pendency of application of the bank before the DRT for recovery, the bank is not precluded from resorting to SARFAESI Act, 2002 is no more resintegra. The Apex Court in Transcore v. Union of India and another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 in paragraphs 68 and 69 has laid down following:— "(68) The object behind introducing the first proviso and the third proviso to section 19(1) of the DRT Act is to align the provisions of the DRT Act, the NPA Act and Order XXIII CPC. The Apex Court in Transcore v. Union of India and another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 in paragraphs 68 and 69 has laid down following:— "(68) The object behind introducing the first proviso and the third proviso to section 19(1) of the DRT Act is to align the provisions of the DRT Act, the NPA Act and Order XXIII CPC. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that an OA is filed in DRT for recovery of an amount on a term loan, on credit facility and on hypothecation account. After filing of OA, on account of non-disposal of the OA by the tribunal due to heavy backlog, the bank finds that one of the three accounts has become substandard/loss, in such a case the bank can invoke the NPA Act with or without the permission of DRT. One cannot lose sight of the fact that even an application for withdrawal/leave takes time for its disposal. As stated above, with inflation in the economy, value of the pledged property/asset depreciates on day-to-day basis. If the borrower does not provide additional asset and the value of the asset pledged keeps on falling then to that extent the account becomes non-performing. Therefore, the bank/FI is required to move under the NPA Act expeditiously by taing one of the measures provided by section 13(4) of the NPA Act. Moreover, Order XXIII CPC is an exception to the common law principle of non-suit, hence the proviso to section 19(1) became a necessity. (69) For the above reasons, we hold that withdrawal of the OA pending before DRT under the DRT Act is not a precondition for taking recourse to the NPA Act. It is for the bank/FI to exercise its discretion as to cases in which it may apply for leave and in cases where they may not apply for leave to withdraw. We do not wish to spell out those circumstances because the said first proviso to section 19(1) is an enabling provision, which provision may deal with myriad circumstances which we do not wish to spell out herein." 8. We do not wish to spell out those circumstances because the said first proviso to section 19(1) is an enabling provision, which provision may deal with myriad circumstances which we do not wish to spell out herein." 8. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court as noted above the bank was fully justified in taking recourse of SARFAESI Act, 2002 even though application of the bank for recovery made under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 9. The basis of the order of the District Magistrate that since the application of the bank being O.A. No. 204 of 2011 for recovery of debt is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal the bank could not file the application under section 14 is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The order passed by the District Magistrate dated 28th June, 2012 is thus set aside. 10. The District Magistrate shall consider the objections of the respondents and pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner filed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition Disposed Of. _____________