SURAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, Sri Dhiraj Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the borrower, Ms. Smriti Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prashant Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the connected matter, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Apurva Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, on the issue of the charges demanded by the police department for providing police force to hand over the physical possession of the secured asset to the Bank in accordance with sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(2.) Short question arises for consideration in three connected writ petitions is with regard to the demand of charges for the use of police force by the police department as communicated by the District Magistrate/Additional City Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), for the purpose of taking physical possession of the secured asset, to forward the same to the secured creditor/bank under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act, 2002). The petitioners in this group of writ petitions are the auction purchasers and the banking institutions who are seeking writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities namely the District Magistrate or the Authorized Officer, as the case may be, to provide assistance in taking physical possession of secured assets by providing police protection under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI ACT' 2002. The petitioner are disputing the charges for the use of police force and other incidental charges, as demanded by the District Magistrate/Authorized Officer, the Superintendent of Police for taking appropriate steps under Sec. 14 (2) of the SARFAESI ACT' 2002.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and the Superintendent of Police, Agra in one of the connected writ petition No.10306 of 2002, a categorical stand has been taken on a letter of request dtd. 4/10/2021 written by the petitioner bank therein to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra requesting to provide necessary police force in order to maintain law and order situation that requisite expenses for providing police force has to be deposited by the Secured Creditor/Bank. A report was sought therein by the S.S.P. Agra vide his letter dtd. 12/10/2021 from the In-charge Inspector, Police Station, New Agra, Agra and the bank was informed on 11/11/2021 to deposit necessary expenses in the treasury for providing police force. The petitioner bank therein, however, did not deposit the requisite money for providing necessary police force, as a result of which, the order under Sec. 14 could not be complied with. The respondent Nos.6 and 7, the officers of the police department have asserted that on the demand of police force by government, semi government, personal, community institutions, commercial institutions, bank, body, etc, under Para 198 of the Police Regulation and Sec. 13 of the Police Act' 1861 expenses/charges for providing police force has to be obtained from them. Reference has also been made to the letter dtd. 26/3/2019 of the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarter issued on the basis of the Government orders dtd. 9/5/2014 and 22/12/2016 that the expenses incurred by the police department in providing police force on the demand of gunner, shadow and guard from the police department by private institutions, commercial institutions, bank, body etc, shall be the fixed on the revised pay computed on the basis of the matrix.