ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/Bank seeking for appropriate direction to the respondent No.3-the District Magistrate, District Raipur to take an appropriate decision on the Section 14 application that is pending before the respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, Section 14 application was filed before the respondent No.3 as early as on 13.01.2022. 2. The District Magistrate has subsequent to the cognizance being taken on the application issued notice to the borrowers, who in turn have also entered appearance before the District Magistrate, however thereafter the proceedings have not been concluded, though more than 14 months have lapsed. The petitioner further submits that the latest 2 development that arose on 16.01.2023 is that the District Magistrate has ordered for the paper publication to be made so far as notice to the borrowers are concerned. This according to the petitioner is totally unwarranted, particularly when the borrowers have been duly notified and they have been appearing before the Magistrate for all these periods in the past and therefore there was no further requirement of procedure of paper publication being drawn by the District Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Standard Chartered Bank, etc. v. V. Nobel Kumar & other, etc.” (2013) 9 SCC 62 and also the decision of this Court in WPC No. 222/2020 (DCB Bank Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 05.02.2020 and also the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of “Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Shri Carnet Areas Alias Fernandes Vermalayam” in Writ Appeal No. 784/2018 decided on 13.07.2018 in support of his contentions. He also has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in WPC No. 2364/2022 in the case of “M/s. Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Bhowick Mechanicals Partnership Concern”. 4. On perusal of the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also going through the note-sheets of the proceedings drawn before the District Magistrate, this Court finds that there is sufficient force in the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. On perusal of the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also going through the note-sheets of the proceedings drawn before the District Magistrate, this Court finds that there is sufficient force in the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner. From the proceedings drawn it is apparently clear that the notices had been issued by the Magistrate and the borrowers were duly served and they had also put in their appearance and it is only subsequently that they have adopted the delay tactic by not appearing before the Magistrate on the intervening dates. Under the 3 circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that no fresh notice, more particularly the paper publication proceeding is required at all. 5. Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate is required to be convinced only in respect of the contents of the application that the petitioner/Bank or the Financial Institution shall be submitting for the purpose of an order under Section 14. In the instant case, the proceedings by the District Magistrate does not reflect any application of mind by the District Magistrate, so far as the contents of the affidavit that the petitioner-Bank/Financial Institution has submitted. Subject to Petitioner-Bank meeting all the requisite conditions as stipulated under the Proviso to Section 14(1), the District Magistrate need not delve into the matter any further and has to pass an order ordering for possession of the property mortgaged with the Bank within an outer limit of sixty days. 6. This Court also in the past in W.P.(C) No.222/2020 (DCB Bank Limited Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 05.02.2020, has in very categorical terms held that in a proceeding under Section 14, notice to Borrower need not be issued or notice to Borrower under Section 14 is not required. What is required as is stipulated in the Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002. The said view of this Court was on the basis of the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs. Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vermalayam decided on 13.07.2018 in W.A. No.784/2018 as also in yet another Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of DCB Bank Limited Vs. The said view of this Court was on the basis of the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs. Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vermalayam decided on 13.07.2018 in W.A. No.784/2018 as also in yet another Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of DCB Bank Limited Vs. State of M.P. & Others, decided on 10.10.2018 in W.P. (C) No.22260/2018 which was disposed of in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 4 rendered in the case of Standard Chartered Bank, etc. Vs. V. Noble Kumar & Other, etc. [2013 (9) SCC 62]. 7. Under the given circumstances of the case and the legal pronouncements referred in the previous paragraphs, the order of the District Magistrate dated 16.01.2023 is totally uncalled for and the same is therefore set-aside/quashed and the District Magistrate is expected to decide the matter at the earliest. 8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of directing the Respondent No.3 to ensure that the Application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 filed by the Petitioner, and which is pending since January, 2022, be considered and decided on its own merits, at the earliest, within an outer limit of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 9. Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.