Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010053152026 2026:GAU-AS:10505-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2381/2026 SUDIP PAITYA S/O- LATE SUDHANGSHU SHEKHAR PATIYA, R/O- LANE NO- 9, GEEO BIAM BUILDING, 1ST LINK ROAD, P.O SILCHAR, P.S- RANGIRKHARI, SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788006, -VERSUS - THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHRS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR , H.O- PLOT NO-4, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 2:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER SASRA PINJAB NATIONAL BANK CIRCLE OFFICE BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781005 3:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FANCY BAZAR BRANCH GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781001 4:THE BRANCH MANAGER Page No.# 2/4 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FANCY BAZAR BRANCH GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781001 5:THE ADDL. DIST. COMMISSIONER, CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 For the petitioner : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. A. Parvez, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam For respondent No.5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 30-07-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. Parvez, learned Advocate for the Punjab National Bank/respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner, who is a contractor, had taken a loan of Rs.1.68 Crores from the respondent/Punjab National Bank. His contention is that for one government contract in the department of Irrigation, he had to deposit Rs.22 lakhs as security, in the form of a fixed deposit, pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer of that project. After the work was Page No.# 3/4 completed successfully, the Irrigation Department released the security deposit of Rs.22 lakhs by issuing a bank draft in favour of the petitioner through the respondent/Punjab National Bank. However, the same could not be encashed/withdrawn by the petitioner for the reason that he was intimated by the bank that the amount had already been withdrawn earlier. The claim of the petitioner is that he had never authorised anybody to receive/withdraw the money kept in the fixed deposit. Suspecting misappropriation at the behest of the bank, a criminal case was filed by him, arraigning the Bank Manager as one of the accused. The investigation with respect to that criminal case is still pending. While the investigation of the case, referred to above, was still pending, the respondent/Punjab National Bank started recovery proceedings against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 for the outstanding loan. The respondent/Punjab National Bank had approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and obtained an order on 01.09.2025 permitting the bank to take physical possession of the secured property of the petitioner. A notice was also issued to the petitioner sometimes in September, 2025 asking him to hand over the possession of the property in question to the bank by a fixed date. Mr. Laskar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner having informed the bank about the investigation with respect to the criminal case involving its own official and his offer for One Page No.# 4/4 Time Settlement of the loan, the bank continued with coercive recovery action. The facts stated by the petitioner are seriously disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondent/Punjab National Bank. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent/Punjab National Bank that under an agreement, the money parked in the bank in the name of the petitioner was under the lien of the bank, which could have been used any time for offsetting the loan amount due against him. At this stage, Mr. Parvez, learned Advocate for the respondent/Punjab National Bank has informed this Court that the petitioner had already approached the DRT for the relief claimed herein, which was rejected. Thus, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It would be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant