Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Sethuraman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the issue arising for the consideration of this Court, in the above matter, is covered by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court, in K.Arockiyaraj Vs. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 225 . 3. It had been stated that, on the application made by the respondent bank, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, had passed the impugned order, dated 8.2.2013, for taking physical possession of the properties in question. It is noted that the Full Bench of this Court, in its decision cited supra, had made it clear that the secured creditor could approach the District Magistrate concerned, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to secure the assets, if such assets are in non-metropolitan areas. It is not in dispute that the assets in question in the above matter are situated in a non-metropolitan area. 4. In such circumstances, the respondent bank ought to have approached the District Magistrate concerned, to secure the assets in question, as per Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. However, it is noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, had passed the impugned order, to secure the asset in question, contrary to the provisions contained in Section 14 of the said Act. 5. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to allow the above writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 8.2.2013, in Crl.M.P.No.1865 of 2012, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, made in K.Arockiyaraj Vs. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 225 . Accordingly, the above writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.