ORDER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company engaged in the business of extending various categories of loans to its borrowers, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing Respondent No. 1, the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar of Deglur, to forthwith take physical possession of the secured asset being Milkat No. 824 situated at Post Deglur, Taluka Deglur, District Nanded, in pursuance of an order dated 15 th November 2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 14 of the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that Respondent No. 1 has acted in brazen disregard of the statutory mandate contained in the SARFAESI Act and has consciously failed to implement a binding directive issued by his superior authority. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for appointment of a Court Commissioner to take possession of the property. 2. The factual canvas is neither complex nor in dispute. The borrower of the petitioner availed a loan facility by executing a loan agreement and security documents, creating a mortgage in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property. Upon the borrower’s failure to service the loan and the consequent classification of the account as a Non-Performing Asset, the petitioner invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. After issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) and in order to secure physical possession of the mortgaged property, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Nanded, under Section 14 of the Act. Upon due satisfaction of the statutory requirements, the District Magistrate, by a reasoned order dated 15 November 2022, directed the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Deglur, to take possession of the property and to deliver the same to the authorized officer of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts, and the record bears out, that despite the clear and binding nature of the District Magistrate’s directive, Respondent No. 1 has not taken a single step towards its implementation. No possession notice has been issued; no date or time has been fixed for the execution of the order; no communication has been made to the petitioner; and no justification, statutory or otherwise, has been offered. No possession notice has been issued; no date or time has been fixed for the execution of the order; no communication has been made to the petitioner; and no justification, statutory or otherwise, has been offered. The petitioner’s officers have visited the office of Respondent No. 1 repeatedly and have addressed written representations requesting compliance. These efforts have, however, met with complete silence. In these circumstances, the petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 has deliberately avoided discharge of his statutory obligation, acted in conscious disregard of the directions of his superior authority, and is indirectly enabling the borrower by protracting the process of taking possession. Even a further representation made by the petitioner seeking action for non-compliance has not evoked any response. 3. In support of the petition, reliance has been placed upon the common order of this Court dated 25 th February 2025 in Writ Petition No. 2625 of 2025 (Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), wherein this Court, while dealing with an identical grievance, directed the Collector and the concerned Tahsildars to execute Section 14 orders expeditiously unless interdicted by a competent Court. 4. The learned AGP, appearing for the State, states that Respondent No. 1 will complete the process within six weeks. 5. In the ordinary course, such a statement might have sufficed; but this litigation presents a larger institutional concern which the Court cannot ignore. The difficulties faced by financial institutions in securing possession of properties under the SARFAESI Act have, over the years, led to an unwarranted litigation burden on constitutional courts. What is deeply disturbing is the pattern which has emerged: statutory orders under Section 14 are passed by District Magistrates after due application of mind; they are forwarded to subordinate revenue officers for routine implementation; and yet, no action is taken until a writ petition is filed. When the matter reaches this Court, a standard assurance is offered that the order will be complied with within a stipulated period. But each assurance is case-specific, without systemic consequences, and the very next day another petition is filed arising from an identical failure. This reflects not an occasional lapse but a structural administrative indiscipline. 6. The constitutional function of this Court is not to supervise routine administrative functioning of revenue officers. But each assurance is case-specific, without systemic consequences, and the very next day another petition is filed arising from an identical failure. This reflects not an occasional lapse but a structural administrative indiscipline. 6. The constitutional function of this Court is not to supervise routine administrative functioning of revenue officers. The burden imposed on the High Court by such petitions is a direct consequence of the reluctance of State officials to comply with their statutory obligations. The precious judicial time which ought to be devoted to constitutional questions, protection of liberties, and resolution of matters involving substantial legal issues, is instead spent on issuing repetitive mandamus to revenue officers who, in the ordinary course, are duty-bound to implement binding orders. Such systemic failure severely impacts access to justice and contributes materially to the pendency crisis, a concern repeatedly highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 7. The present case is a stark example. The District Magistrate’s order is of November 2022. Three years have elapsed. Yet, Respondent No. 1, a Tahsildar, has neither implemented his superior officer’s directive nor offered any explanation. The District Magistrate, who issued the order, has evidently not reviewed its implementation or ensured compliance. The entire chain of command appears to have abdicated supervisory responsibility. A government department cannot function in such a manner. Administrative hierarchy exists precisely to ensure discipline, accountability, and lawful implementation of orders. When subordinate officers disregard superior orders with impunity, the rule of law is imperiled. 8. This Court is therefore of the view that it is no longer sufficient to dispose of individual writ petitions with case-specific directions. The pattern of non-compliance has attained such frequency and seriousness that a systemic intervention is warranted. The State must bear unmistakable responsibility to ensure that statutory orders issued under the SARFAESI Act are implemented within a predictable timeframe, and that failures to do so result in real administrative consequences. The SARFAESI Act was enacted to enable expeditious enforcement of security interest. Delays caused by executive indifference defeat the legislative purpose and undermine the financial system which depends upon timely recovery of secured assets. 9. Having regard to the above, and upon a holistic consideration of the material placed before the Court, two conclusions emerge with clarity. First, Respondent No. 1 has acted in brazen violation of a statutory order and in conscious disregard of his statutory duty. 9. Having regard to the above, and upon a holistic consideration of the material placed before the Court, two conclusions emerge with clarity. First, Respondent No. 1 has acted in brazen violation of a statutory order and in conscious disregard of his statutory duty. Second, the institutional failure within the revenue administration necessitates framing of binding guidelines to ensure timely and accountable execution of Section 14 orders passed under SARFAESI Act. 10. This Court therefore directs that the order dated 15 November 2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Nanded, shall be implemented forthwith. Respondent No. 1 shall issue possession notice, fix the date and time, secure police assistance where necessary, take physical possession of the property, draw the requisite panchnama, and hand over possession to the petitioner’s authorized officer within a period of two weeks from today. Failure to comply with this direction shall constitute gross disobedience inviting contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 11. This Court, therefore, feels it appropriate to issue certain directions in the nature of guidelines to operationalize and secure the effective implementation of the duty already imposed by Parliament under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The authority vested in the District Magistrate and other designated officers to render assistance in taking possession is a statutory obligation. The Act contemplates that such assistance shall be rendered expeditiously, as delayed delivery of possession would defeat the very object and legislative intent underlying the enactment. When the statute is silent on the specific time period within its such assistance is to be provided, it falls within the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court to ensure that the executive action conforms to the constitutional norms of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The power of the constitutional Courts to issue such directions in situations where an administrative vacuum defeats the purpose of legislation as it recognizes in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 , wherein the Court laid down procedural norms, timelines, and oversight mechanisms to ensure the independent functioning of the investigating agency, holding that such directions were necessary to uphold the rule of law and did not amount to impermissible judicial legislation. In Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued detailed structural and procedural guidelines on police reforms, which were binding on the States despite the absence of a statutory framework. The governing principle that emerges from these decisions is delayed. The Courts may mold guidelines to secure implementation of statutory and constitutional duties when inaction of authorities or absence of an administrative framework renders the legislative intent nugatory. 12. The Supreme Court, in NKGSB Co-operative Bank Limited v. Subir Chakraborty, (2017) 16 SCC 348, emphasized that an order passed under Section 14 must be implemented with “utmost expedition” and that delays on the part of the administrative authorities undermine the very object of the SARFAESI Act. However, expedition has shown in absence of a structured administrative mechanism and defined timelines, the statutory mandate has rendered ineffective, and financial institutions are compelled to repeatedly approach the constitutional Courts seeking writs of mandamus against the authorities for directions to perform their statutory obligations. Chronic delay by the executive authorities thus defeats the legislative purpose and necessitates judicial intervention. 13. Further, in order to institutionalize compliance, this Court directs the Chief Secretary of the State Government to issue a Government Order within a period of four weeks from today to all the Collectors in the State of Maharashtra, mandating that all concerned officers of the Revenue Department, who are under a statutory obligation under the SARFAESI Act, shall execute orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a maximum period of sixty (60) days from the receipt of such orders, extendable by not more than fifteen (15) additional days, only upon written justification recorded by them for the delay. The executing authority, upon receipt of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, shall execute the order in the following manner:- (i) Issue notice to all the concerned parties within seven (7) days. (ii) On the appointed day, the concerned authority shall visit the property and prepare panchanama. (iii) In case any objections are received from any person, such objections shall be served upon the other parties with a notice to file their reply within a further period of seven (7) days. (iv) In case for some reason, the reply cannot be filed within the stipulated period, then additional three (3) days’ time be given collectively for filing the reply. (iv) In case for some reason, the reply cannot be filed within the stipulated period, then additional three (3) days’ time be given collectively for filing the reply. (v) In case parties want to file a rejoinder, further two (2) days have to be granted within which the rejoinder has to be filed. (vi) With the consent of the parties, in next three (3) days, the date of hearing on the objection should be fixed. (vii) On completion of argument, the decision on the objection should be taken by written order within one (1) week. (viii) After the order is served, the concerned authority will proceed to take possession and hand over the same to the creditor. 14. The Registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra, who shall place on record before this Court, on the next date, the Government Order issued in compliance with these directions. A copy shall also be forwarded to the Collector, Nanded, who shall forthwith initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 1 for willful non-compliance with the District Magistrate’s order dated 15th November 2022. 15. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 16. The matter shall be listed on 23.12.2025 for compliance by the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, and the Collector, Nanded.