Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. It is found that, in the present Writ Petition, an issue had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the first respondent - District Collector, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that before taking possession of the properties in question, they would follow the dictum laid down, in K. Arockiaraj Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, reported in 2013(5) CTC 225 and Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Recn. Co. Ltd, reported in 2014(6) SCC 1, as well as the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent bank, as no further orders are necessary, the Writ Petition stands closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.