JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, C.J. Whether the secured creditor has a remedy before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if aggrieved by an order under Section 14 passed by the District Magistrate? The 3rd respondent has filed an application SA No. 193 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh, challenging the steps taken by the petitioner bank as per Annexure P-2, notice dated 8.4.2011, for recovery. The District Magistrate, Solan on an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the authorized officer of the Bank passed Annexure P-6, interim order dated 16.2.2012 directing not to hand over the physical possession of the property to the Bank until further orders. In the meanwhile, on 21.11.2011, The DRT directed the 3rd respondent-Bank to make deposit of Rs.50lacs before the last date of receipt of sealed tender for sale. A default clause was also added to the effect that in case deposit was not made, the Bank was free to proceed with the sale, but the confirmation was to be deferred till the next date of hearing. The matter was listed on 9.12.2011. On 9.12.2011, the case was adjourned to 6.2.2012. On 6.2.2012, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed another interim order Annexure P-9. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “It is on record that applicant has not complied with the order dated 21.11.2011. The respondent-bank is at liberty to proceed further as per law.” 2. It is thereafter, the District Magistrate passed Annexure P-10, impugned order dated 28.3.2012. It was observed in the order that the very permission to proceed with the sale having been granted only on 6.2.2012, all the earlier applications filed on behalf of the bank were premature. In such circumstances, the parties were relegated to the DRT to work out their reliefs. Thus, the application filed by the authorized officer of the bank for possession under Section 14 was disposed of. The earlier interim order regarding handing over possession and the final order relegating the parties to DRT are under challenge, at the instance of the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the order passed by the DRT is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the matter is now pending before the DRT, hence the petitioner may be relegated to work out the grievances before the DRT. 3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the order passed by the DRT is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the matter is now pending before the DRT, hence the petitioner may be relegated to work out the grievances before the DRT. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings before the DRT initiated by the Bank are themselves not maintainable and hence there arises no question of possession under Section 14. Still further, it is submitted that the petitioner has a remedy before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has invited our reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev versus State of Maharashtra (2011) 106 SCL 1 (SC). In paragaraph 20, it is held as follows: “ …….It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT.” 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel that any person affected would mean not only the borrower but also the Bank. The secured creditor/the Bank is not a person affected by the order passed by the District Magistrate. The person affected can only either be the borrower or a third party having some interest though the borrower whose interests are otherwise affected. The Bank is a person interested in recovering the money that it has lent. Therefore, there is no remedy of appeal available to the secured creditor before the DRT against an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14. 6. Before us, the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate alone is under challenge. It is fairly clear from the order by the District Magistrate that there is no application of mind as to the jurisdiction to be exercised by the District Magistrate under Section 14, when an application by the authorized officer for possession is filed. It appears that the District Magistrate has taken a view that application filed by the Bank prior to 6.2.2012 was premature. That stand also cannot be appreciated. It appears that the District Magistrate has taken a view that application filed by the Bank prior to 6.2.2012 was premature. That stand also cannot be appreciated. The DRT in its order Annexure P-7 dated 21.11.2011 had made it clear that in case the 3rd respondent had not deposited an amount of Rs.50 lacs before the last date of receipt of the tenders for sale, it was open to the Bank to proceed with the sale. There was stay only with regard to the confirmation of sale till the next date of hearing. That was on 9.12.2011. There was no reference to the extension of that interim order. Be that as it may. On 6.2.2012, the DRT had made it clear that the Bank was at liberty to proceed further as per law. For proceeding with the matter as per law, would mean that the Bank was free to proceed with the steps taken for the sale. Obviously, the Bank did not require any permission to proceed with the matter before the DRT. So, the permission granted to the Bank to proceed in accordance with law would only mean to proceed with the steps taken for the sale. The sale can be conducted only when the Bank is in possession of the property. The application filed by the authorized officer was for possession of the property. As and when an application under Section 14 is made, the District Magistrate is obliged to take possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the secured creditor. The law is well settled in that regard. To quote para 18 of Kanaiyalal’s case (supra) “18. Section 14 of the Act provides that the secured creditor can file an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction, the secured asset or other documents relating thereto are found for taking possession thereof. If any such request is made, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, is obliged to take possession of such asset or document and forward the same to the secured creditor. Therefore, it follows that a secured creditor may, in order to enforce his rights under Section 13(4), in particular Section 13(4) (a), may take recourse to Section 14 of the Act.” 7. Therefore, it follows that a secured creditor may, in order to enforce his rights under Section 13(4), in particular Section 13(4) (a), may take recourse to Section 14 of the Act.” 7. Therefore, the District Magistrate was bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 14 in accordance with law, as also permitted by the DRT in Annexure P-7, interim order dated 21.11.2011 and further as per order Annexure P-9 dated 6.2.2012. In that view of the matter, we set aside Annexure P-9 and remit the matter to the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.