ORDER 1. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited (in short “ARC”) is before Court seeking writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 to comply with the order passed by the Collector on 31st August 2020 under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) to take physical possession of the mortgaged assets; immovable properties described in the said order and forward such assets to the petitioner. 2. Before adverting to the prayer so made, it is expedient to observe that the Allahabad Bank, the secured creditor, after service of notice to the borrower, as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act called upon the borrower/Intervener to make good the payment of outstanding dues towards the loan account declared NPA and after having not received the payment due from the borrower, approached the Collector filing an application under section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the mortgaged property detailed in order dated 31.8.2020 and forward such assets/mortgaged property to it. 3. Respondent No.2 after ensuring compliance of the requirement as adumbrated under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has passed the order on 16.1.2019. It may be stated that during pendency of proceedings on 27.12.2018, the mortgaged assets in question were transferred to the petitioner company by assignment deed dated 27.12.2018. However, there was no repayment of the loan by the defaulter borrower and the mortgage assets were also not transferred physically to the petitioner-ARC. As a result, the petitioner approached the Collector filing an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, whereupon the order dated 31.8.2020 (Annexure P/1) has been passed for the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition and referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 4. As a result, the petitioner approached the Collector filing an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, whereupon the order dated 31.8.2020 (Annexure P/1) has been passed for the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition and referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 4. Shri Praveen Surange, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after acquisition of the rights and interests in the mortgaged assets in question from the secured creditor on 27.12.2018, the petitioner has acquired the status of lender i.e. Allahabad Bank in the instant case by virtue of the provisions as contained under sub section (2) of section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under :- “(2) If the bank or financial institution is a lender in relation to any financial assets acquired under subsection (1) by the asset reconstruction company, such asset reconstruction company shall, on such acquisition, be deemed to be the lender and all the rights of such bank or financial institution shall vest in such company in relation to such financial assets.” and entitled to secure physical possession of the mortgaged property. 5. Inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 despite specific directions of the Collector in the order dated 31.8.2020, has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court seeking writ of mandamus. 6. Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that if the order dated 31.8.2020 has not been complied with by the respondent No.3- Tehsildar, the petitioner may approach the respondent No.2 – Collector for ensuring execution of the order. 7. Shri Praveen Surange, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless there is a mandatory direction issued by this Court, the aforesaid suggestion of the learned Additional Advocate General may not enure to the benefit of the petitioner, as well evident from the fact that despite the order dated 31.8.2020 so far mortgaged assets have not been handed over to the petitioner. 8. Regard being had to the provisions of sub section (1) (a) and (b) 14 of the SARFAESI Act quoted below :- 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. 8. Regard being had to the provisions of sub section (1) (a) and (b) 14 of the SARFAESI Act quoted below :- 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. - (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within those jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him - (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor as well as that of section 14 (1A) quoted below :- (1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him, (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor, we accede to the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner for issuing writ of mandamus securing physical possession of the mortgaged assets and handing over the same to the petitioner only. 9. At this stage, Shri D.K.Agarwal, learned counsel sought audience on behalf of the defaulter/borrower, as an intervener, with the submission that the Collector while passing the order on 16.1.2019 or 31.8.2020 neither noticed him nor heard him. However, he is at loss to state that there is no provision under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act whereunder a borrower is required to be noticed or heard. That apart, learned counsel also tried to prick holes in the order passed on 31.8.2020 though failed to substantiate the same, particularly in the context of compliance of section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that notice was issued to the borrower under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act for depositing the outstanding dues within 60 days, which was not honoured by the borrower. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that notice was issued to the borrower under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act for depositing the outstanding dues within 60 days, which was not honoured by the borrower. That apart, notice was also issued for hearing before the Collector and when the same was returned unserved, on the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, paper publication of the notice was done on 8.2.2020 in daily news papers viz. People's Samachar and Raj Express. Despite that, when the borrower did not appear, ample opportunities were granted inasmuch as the matter was deferred for hearing the borrower on 9 occasions i.e. on 20.2.2020, 24.2.2020, 2.3.2020, 5.3.2020, 9.3.2020, 16.3.2020, 26.5.2020, 17.6.2020 and 8.7.2020. As a matter of fact said aspect has been dealt with by the Collector while he passed the order on 16.1.2019 as well as on 31.8.2020 as evident from the internal page 2 as well as internal pages 3 paras 5 & 7 of the order. Therefore, objection in that behalf is factually incorrect and misconceived. 11. Shri Agrawal also tried to submit that once the mortgaged assets were assigned to the petitioner company by the secured creditor no proceeding could have been initiated by the petitioner – ARC as according to him, the ARC is not a secured creditor. That apart, the petitioner has transferred the assets to the third party vide sale deed dated 26.8.2022. 12. The aforesaid objection is wholly misconceived and misdirected as by force of provision of section 5(2) of the SARFAESI Act, as quoted above, the petitioner-ARC has stepped into the shoes of secured creditor and became a lender. Besides, the petitioner-ARC after having acquired the status of secured creditor; lender, filed an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act prior to 31.8.2020 before the Collector upon which the order dated 31.8.2020 was passed by the Collector, non compliance whereof led to filing of instant writ petition on 13.4.2022 i.e. much prior to the alleged sale deed dated 26.8.2022. Hence, the objection in that behalf is also of no consequence. 13. This Court may not lose sight of the fact that the order dated 31.8.2020 has attained finality and therefore it is the duty of the Collector to ensure that the order so passed is implemented as a statutory obligation. 14. Hence, the objection in that behalf is also of no consequence. 13. This Court may not lose sight of the fact that the order dated 31.8.2020 has attained finality and therefore it is the duty of the Collector to ensure that the order so passed is implemented as a statutory obligation. 14. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents No.2 and 3 shall ensure taking over of the physical possession of the mortgaged assets and handing over the same to the petitioner – ACR within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.