Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Section 14 depends on express authorisation; lack of power defeats the order despite alternative remedy.

An order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be passed only by the Magistrate expressly empowered by law, and an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot derive jurisdiction from an internal office order unless the High Court has specifically authorised the exercise of that power. An action taken without such authorisation is beyond jurisdiction and void. The availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 does not bar writ relief where the challenged action is wholly without jurisdiction, as lack of jurisdiction falls within the recognised exceptions to writ restraint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the absence of a specific authorisation by the High Court; (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the absence of a specific authorisation by the High Court.

Analysis: Section 14 vests the power to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate. The power of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 17(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 exists only to the extent conferred by the High Court. A mere office order by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Code could not enlarge that jurisdiction unless the High Court had specifically authorised the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. As no such authorisation existed, the office order and the consequent order passed on the bank's application were beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on jurisdictional grounds; the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had no authority to decide the Section 14 application, and the impugned order was void ab initio.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The Court also treated the case as falling within the recognised exceptions to the self-imposed rule of writ restraint, namely cases involving lack of jurisdiction. In those circumstances, relegating the petitioner to an appellate remedy was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed, the petition was allowed, and the secured creditor was left free to move the competent Magistrate afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be passed only by the authority expressly empowered by law, and a subordinate magistrate cannot assume that jurisdiction through internal administrative allocation unless the High Court has conferred the requisite powers.

---