Madhya Pradesh High Court slaps ₹10k costs on Additional District Magistrate for interpreting law as per convenience

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently criticised an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) for interpreting the law "as per her convenience" while dealing with proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). [SMFG India Credit Company Limited v ADM Indore & Ors].A bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma proceeded to impose ₹10,000 as costs on the ADM at Indore, opining that the Court's time had been wasted on account of her actions.."This Court is of the considered opinion that heavy cost be imposed on the Officer concerned for deliberately interpreting the law as per her convenience ... Additional District Magistrate, Indore is saddled with cost of Rs. 10,000/- for wasting the precious time of this Court which could have been utilized in deciding more pressing matters," the October 18 order said. .The Court was dealing with a case where a secured creditor complained of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act being stalled owing to certain actions by the ADM. .The Court was told the ADM had exceeded her jurisdiction under the Act by providing borrowers time to submit responses when the secured creditor approached her with an application for possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. By a June 28 order, the ADM also dismissed the creditor's Section 14 application. .The Court criticised the ADM's actions, pointing out that a District Magistrate does not have such adjudicatory powers under the SARFAESI Act."This Court as well as the apex court time and again reiterated that the role of DM/ADM is ministerial in nature so far as Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is concerned and not that of adjudication," the Court observed..The bench also noted that this was the second time that the creditor was forced to approach the Court in the matter. An earlier order passed by the High Court in favour of the creditor had been disregarded by the ADM/ Collector, the Court was told. Further, the Court also took critical note of an application filed by the ADM to withdraw the June 28 order passed by her, which the bench took to mean that the ADM was "in a habit" of exercising powers arbitrarily.All of this led the Court to warn the ADM not engage in such conduct in future.“As a word of caution, this Court expects that in future at least the Additional District Magistrate shall follow the orders passed by the High Court and Apex Court in letter and spirit and shall not adventure in interpreting the orders on her own," the Court said..The bench proceeded to grant the secured creditor relief and overturned the ADM's June 28 order. The ADM was ordered to issue a new order in the matter. With this, the plea was disposed of..Advocate Nilesh Agrawal represented the petitioner (secured creditor). Deputy General Aniket Nayak appeared for the State government. Advocate Rohit Sharma appeared for a respondent. .[Read Order]