JUDGMENT SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an application under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) on 8.7.2014, seeking assistance of the first respondent for taking over possession of the secured asset in furtherance of exercise under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The authority has not taken any step so far when the object of the said provisions is to extend assistance to secure the possession of the secured asset at the earliest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the action taken by the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, the borrowers, Thiru Manoharan and his wife Ambika, had filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai in S.A. No. 156 of 2010. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal by order dated 20.1.2012. There against, the borrowers preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Since the borrower Manoharan died, his sons, namely Saravanan and Ashok Kumar were pleaded in the said appeal. The Appellate Tribunal directed the respondents 2 to 4 herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs on or before 7.6.2013, failing which the IA would automatically dismissed. The respondents 2 to 4 have not complied with the said order. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 8.7.2014 before the first respondent for taking physical possession of the mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that a direction to that effect may be passed. 4. Accordingly, we direct the first respondent to take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.