JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to decide the application under Section 14 of the SARFASI Act, 2002 registered as case No. PS/111/PNB of 2015 PNB Vs. District Magistrate, U.S. Nagar and others expeditiously within a period granted by this Hon’ble Court .” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking Act No. 1970 and carries on business as Bankers and operates through various branches, including its branch at Mata Mandir Road, Kashipur. Respondent no. 2 applied for cash credit limit, term loan and bank guarantee with the petitioner bank and, for that purpose, the borrower executed all the required and necessary documents in favour of the bank. The borrower was granted Rs. 355.00 lacs cash credit limit, Rs. 490.00 lacs term loan and Rs. 10.00 lacs bank guarantee. The total amount of loan was sanctioned by the petitioner and availed by the borrower was Rs. 855.00 lacs. The respondent nos. 3 to 7, who are the Director of respondent no. 2 company, stood guarantors of the loan taken by the company and the respondent no. 8, Smt. Sudesh Sharma, also stood as a guarantor of the loan taken by the respondent no. 2 company and they executed the required and necessary documents in favour of the bank regarding the said loan. The said borrower availed the financial assistance with an undertaking for repayment of the said financial assistance in terms of the agreement and created mortgage by way of deposit of original documents of the property, including creating security interest in favour of the petitioner Bank/secured creditor. The respondent no. 2 made default in repayment of secured debts and, due to which, the debts were classified by the petitioner bank as N.P.A. on 30.09.2012 as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The amount due to the bank as on 30.09.2012 was Rs. 7,74,350,43.00. Petitioner bank served several notices to the respondent nos. 2 to 8 and, in the said notices, the bank requested to the respondent nos. 2 to 8 to pay the said amount due on the respondent no. The amount due to the bank as on 30.09.2012 was Rs. 7,74,350,43.00. Petitioner bank served several notices to the respondent nos. 2 to 8 and, in the said notices, the bank requested to the respondent nos. 2 to 8 to pay the said amount due on the respondent no. 2, but they were giving false assurance to the petitioner to pay the said amount. When the respondent nos. 2 to 8 neither paid the said amount due on them, nor paid any attention to the repeated requests and reminders of the petitioner, then the petitioner bank on 27.04.2013 sent a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 calling upon the borrower/guarantors i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 8 to repay the amount mentioned in the notice being Rs. 7,74,350,43.00 with further interest w.e.f. 01.04.2012 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. But inspite of the said notice being served, the borrower/guarantors i.e. respondents no. 2 to 8 failed to pay the said outstanding dues within 60 days from the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, petitioner bank served another notice dated 02.08.2013 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. As the actual physical possession of the secured assets referred in the aforesaid notice was not handed over by the respondent nos. 2 to 8 and is likely to resist the authorized officer of the petitioner bank in taking over the possession of the secured assets in exercise of the power under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and it was not possible for the petitioner bank to take the actual physical possession over the secured assets, therefore, on 16.10.2015, the petitioner moved an application alongwith an affidavit under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the respondent no. 1, which was received on 19.10.2015 by the office of the respondent no. 1. The said application has not been decided by the respondent no. 1 so far. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though an application under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 on 16.10.2015/19.10.2015, but the same has not been decided by the respondent no. 1 so far. 4. 1 so far. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though an application under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 on 16.10.2015/19.10.2015, but the same has not been decided by the respondent no. 1 so far. 4. The District Magistrate should decide the application moved under Section 13(14) of the SARFAESI Act within time as prescribed in the Act, but, in this case, I find that the application filed by the petitioner has not been decided for the last one year. I asked the Standing Counsel for the State to seek instructions in the matter. Today, Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions from the concerned District Magistrate. He has been informed that, on 30.12.2013, an application under Section 14 was moved by the petitioner and, after re-consideration, it was rejected on 09.09.2014. Thereafter, one Writ Petition (M/S) No. 572 of 2015 was filed, in which direction was issued to take a decision. Thereafter, the District Magistrate informed the petitioner that, before filing of the writ petition, his application moved under Section 14 of the Act has already been decided. Now, the second writ petition has been filed and, according to the learned counsel for the State, the same is not maintainable. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 6. Though, application moved by the petitioner on earlier occasion has been rejected by the District Magistrate, but in my view the District Magistrate should also take a decision at the earliest on the present application, which has been moved by the petitioner on 16.10.2015/19.10.2015. 7. It is open for the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar to consider all the earlier orders also while deciding the application. This Court has simply asked the District Magistrate to take a decision at the earliest. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this Judgment. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.