ORDER : M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Borrowers, viz., Rajagopal, Thavamani, Rajeswari approached the Petitioner for availing House Loan to purchase House / Flat and that the sum of Rs.17,22,363/- [Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Three only] was sanctioned as Loan, as per Loan Agreement No.SLPHCHNI0000973 towards the purchase of an immovable property. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, the borrowers had to pay the loan pursuant to the sanction of loan and in continuation of the process of loan, the borrowers had deposited all the original deeds and title deeds and related documents pertaining to the schedule property with an intention to create Equitable Mortgage to secure the repayment of Home Equity Loan and further that, the borrowers had executed and registered a mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds to and in favour of the Petitioner. As a matter of fact, the said mortgage deed was registered [as Document No.1393 of 2016] on the file of SRO, Cheyyar Joint - II. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that the borrowers are highly irregular in honouring their commitments and further, they had committed default in payment of three consecutive Equal Monthly Installments and hence the loan account of the borrowers was classified as Non-Performing Assets [NPA] as on 05.06.2017. Since the borrowers had committed persistent default, the Petitioner invoked the ingredients of Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Act 54 of 2002], as per Notice dated 24.07.2017 for foreclosure of loan vide Loan Agreement No.SLPHCHNI0000973 and calling upon the Borrowers to pay the entire outstanding of Rs.18,55,142/- [Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety One only] as on 19.07.2017. Even after receipt of notice, there was no response or improvement in the conduct of the Borrowers and hence Possession Notice dated 11.11.2017 was issued, as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In fact, the Possession Notice was issued in leading News Paper on 18.11.2017. The Petitioner took the symbolic possession of the mortgage property, as per Notice dated 11.11.2017. 5. In fact, the Possession Notice was issued in leading News Paper on 18.11.2017. The Petitioner took the symbolic possession of the mortgage property, as per Notice dated 11.11.2017. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner filed an Application on 19.02.2018 before the Respondent seeking suitable direction or assistance for taking possession of the property in issue. The Respondent has not performed its statutory obligation and the Petitioner's Application dated 19.02.2018 is not yet processed. The matter is pending for more than six months on the file of the Respondent. 6. At this juncture, Mr.Pothiraj, Learned Special Government Pleader informs this Court that the Respondent / District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District will pass orders on the Application / Petition filed by the Petitioner dated 19.02.2018 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 7. By virtue of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Concerned Magistrate has the option of calling upon the Bank itself to furnish a relevant details and to issue Notice to the Borrower for verification of existence of any fact, which is required to be verified by him. 8. As per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is only when the possession of an Asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or the same is required to be sold or transferred by secured creditor under the provisions of the Act, 2002, an Application can be filed. 9. It is to be remembered that when the 'Principles of Natural Justice' is followed by the Procedure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, no further Notice is needed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. 10. It must be borne in mind that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not visualise any judicial process or work. As a matter of fact, no adjudicatory process is involved, of course, it is an assistance provided by a Lawful Authority by means of non-Adjudicatory process under Section 14 of the Act. 11. Moreover, the powers that are exercised by the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are purely executory in character. As a matter of fact, no adjudicatory process is involved, of course, it is an assistance provided by a Lawful Authority by means of non-Adjudicatory process under Section 14 of the Act. 11. Moreover, the powers that are exercised by the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are purely executory in character. To put it precisely, Section 14 of the Act provides for rendering of an assistance to a secured creditor by the authority specified in the provision for the purpose of taking the possession of 'Secured Assets' by the 'Secured Creditor', as per decision Bharatbhai Ramniklal Sata V. Collector and District Magstrate reported in AIR 2010 Guj. 72 . 12. It is to be pointed out that when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Judge failed to adhere to the Provision of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, then, the 'Writ Petition is Maintainable in Law'. Further, the Authority acting under Section 14 of Act is not required to act beyond the purview of Section 14 by usurping the powers available to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. 13. Considering the submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondent / District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, praying for two weeks time to pass necessary orders by the Respondent on the Application of the Petitioner / Housing Finance dated 19.02.2018, this Court, at this stage, in the interest of justice grants two weeks time to the Respondent / District Collector, Thiruvannamalai to pass necessary orders on the Application of the Petitioner dated 19.02.2018 from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It cannot be gainsaid that the Respondent / District Collector, Thiruvannamalai shall pass a reasoned speaking order on merits in a fair, free, just, dispassionate and in a prudent manner after applying his thinking judicial mind in the subject matter in issue. If the Petitioner requires any opportunity of hearing, then, the Respondent shall provide the same, of course, after adhering to the 'Principles of Natural Justice'. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.