Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010185432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4791/2025 RATAN DAS S/O PRAFULLA DAS, R/O VILL- GOBHALIPAM, CHANDRAPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- CHANDRAPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781150 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, 2ND FLOOR, I BLOCK, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED REGISTERED ADDRESS- GATEWAY BUILDING APOLLO BLUNDER MUMBAI MAHARASTRA PIN-400001 3:BRANCH MANAGER MAHINDRA FINANCE ADABARI TINIALI 2ND FLOOR PRAVA COMPLEX DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A N SARMAH, MR. D DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 21.08.2025 Heard Shri D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Though this case was taken up for consideration on the strength of a mentioned memo yesterday, the aspect of its maintainability had arisen and therefore, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was adjourned and has been taken up for consideration today. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had availed a vehicle loan vide an arrangement dated 05.08.2022 and the sanctioned amount of Rs.4,22,000/-. The amount was supposed to be repaid in 38 installments which was to expire on 26.08.2026. Without going into the details of the facts, it is the case of the petitioner that the EMIs were being paid timely. However, due to the fact that the vehicle in question namely, Maruti EECO bearing registration No. AS-01-PC- 4251 had met with an accident, there was some delay in payment of the installments which, according to the petitioner was however rectified. For the said delay, some penal charges were sought to be imposed and taking a cue from the same, the vehicle has been taken into custody by the respondent no. 3 on 10.08.2025 and it has also been stipulated that on 21.08.2025 i.e. today, the vehicle would be sold. The petitioner has also alleged that information was sought to be lodged in the concerned Silchar Sadar Police Station as well as the Gorchuk Police Station which was however not entertained. 4. Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent nos.2 and 3 are ex-facie illegal and unreasonable and Page No.# 3/4 therefore, the relief prayed for are justified. On the aspect of the maintainability, he has submitted that the right to life and livelihood is involved and therefore, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. 5. Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following cases- i. Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 1 ii. Order dated 19.05.2023 of the Patna High Court [Dhananjay Seth Vs. Union of India] 6. Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has however questioned the maintainability of this writ petition and has submitted that apart from the dispute being with a private entity, the same arises out of commercial transactions and can be raised in the appropriate Civil Court. 7. The facts involved would show that the transaction in question is purely a commercial transaction with private entities, namely, the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Though this Court at this stage, would refrain from making any comments on the inter say rights and liabilities, the aspect of entertaining a writ petition with a dispute of this nature would not be the correct course of action. Though Article 12 of the Constitution of India has been given a wider meaning so as to include even private entities in an appropriate case, the nature of the dispute would have a relevant bearing in such a situation. In the instant case, as observed above, the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction. 8. In the case of Kaushal Kishor (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after examining the case laws on the subject had widened the scope of entertaining a Page No.# 4/4 writ petition by giving a broad meaning to the expression any other authority appearing in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the emphasis is on the aspect of violation of the fundamental rights mainly, Article 21 which is with regard to the right to life and liberty. The facts of the present case however would not fit into the ratio laid down. 9. So far as the case of Dhananjay Seth (supra) is concerned, apart from the aspect that the same would have only a persuasive value as it is from another High Court, the facts involved are distinguishable. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present approach to a Writ Court is not mandated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some protection may be granted to him so that he can approach the Civil Court. 12. Taking the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the submissions into consideration, it is provided that if the petitioner approaches the learned Civil Court within a period of 7 days from today, no coercive action including sale of the vehicle, namely, Maruti EECO bearing registration No. AS-01-PC-4251 be taken by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is further clarified that the aforesaid direction would be effective only for a week and in the suit which may be filed, the petitioner can also pray for an injunction which will be considered by the learned Court strictly in accordance with the law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant