ORDER 1. This petition filed u/Art. 226 of the Constitution, petitioner assails the order Annexure-P/1 dated 2.7.2020 passed by Collector, Guna (M.P.) u/Sec. 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (for brevity SARFAESI) Act, 2002) on various grounds. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity of being heard was afforded prior to passing of the impugned order P/1. 3. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not an adjudicatory but an executory provision which becomes operational after the process of adjudication comes to an end. 3.1 Bare perusal of the impugned order P/1 reveals that u/Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 notice was issued to petitioner but he failed to respond to the same by paying the outstanding loan and therefore, as a necessary consequence Bank had to request the Executive Magistrate to handover possession of the secured assets. 3.2 More so, apex Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors [ (2011) 2 SCC 782 ] has held that action taken u/Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is challengable u/Sec. 17(1) before appellate authority. Relevant para 22 of the said judgment is reproduced below :- “22. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT.” 3.3 In view of above, no case for interference is made out and petition stands dismissed giving liberty to petitioner to avail remedy available to it under law. 4. No cost. Sanjay Kumar Sharma for petitioner; Abhishek Mishra, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.