Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010258932024 2026:GAU-AS:8545 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6539/2024 AVTAR SINGH SON OF AJIT SINGH RESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NEAR KALI MATA MANDIR ROAD, NALAPARA, POST OFFICE- SAWKICHI, POLICE SATION- BASIST, GAUHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM- 781040. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, BLOCK A, 2ND FLOOR, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781006. 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT KAMRUP GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION BASISTHA Page No.# 2/5 BELTOLA CHARIALI NEAR NH37 GUWAHATI ASSAM. 5:REVERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL VISTA SECTOR 17 CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 6:RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 500X PLUS 7WS STATION RD. MAWHATI PAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781001 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 7:YES BANK LIMITED HOUSE OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY SANTACRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI- 400055 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR. 8:YES BANK LIMITED 1ST FLOOR MEGHA PLAZA COMPLEX BELTOLA CHARIALI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781028 THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. H S BORAH (R5, R6),MR. P HAZARIKA (R5, R6) Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner through the virtual mode along with Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1-4; Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6; and Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing Registration no. NL-01-AE-8302 [‘the subject-vehicle’] by availing financial facility from the respondent no. 7 through respondent no. 8 and the financial facility availed was for a sum of Rs. 39,77,666/-. The petitioner has stated that out of the said sanctioned financial amount, only an amount of Rs. 38,82,435/- was disbursed to the petitioner and the respondent bank did not disburse the remaining amount of Rs. 95,231/-. 3. As per the loan agreement executed by the petitioner with the respondent bank, the petitioner was required to repay the loan amount along with interest in 58 Equated Monthly Installments [EMIs] of Rs. 86,480/- during the period from 08.05.2021 to 08.02.2026. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that by the time the writ petition was instituted, the petitioner had already repaid an amount of Rs. 30,39,425/-, which included an amount of Rs. 21,66,630/- towards principle and an amount of Rs. 8,72,795/- towards interest. The petitioner has stated that as per the account statement provided to the petitioner on 15.10.2026, only an amount of Rs. 5,92,735/- was to be repaid to the petitioner. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8 has denied the veracity of such statements. 5. The petitioner had approached this Court with an apprehension that the respondent bank authorities are contemplating to take custody of the subject-vehicle with the help of Page No.# 4/5 recovery agents, which procedure is not in conformity with the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India notified by a ‘Master Circular – Fair Practices Code’ dated 28.09.2006 and a line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, more particularly in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Prakash Kaur and others [2007] 2 SCC 711 and Kaushal Kishor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2023] 4 SCC 1. 6. In the writ petition, notice was issued to the respondents on 09.12.2024. On 18.12.2024, an interim order was passed to the effect that the bank authorities shall not take steps to recover the subject-vehicle from the petitioner and the petitioner would continue to pay the installments as required in terms of the agreement. 7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 & 8 has submitted that in the event the respondent bank authorities takes any decision for recovery of the vehicle in the event of default on the part of the petitioner to deposit the EMIs in terms of the loan agreement then such recovery will be in strict terms of the Master Circular dated 28.09.2006 of the Reserve Bank of India and in compliance of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Kaur [supra] and Kaushal Kishor [supra] and as per the terms and conditions of the concerned loan agreement. 8. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 are found to be a private sector bank, and the loan agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 bank is a private contract. This Court in the writ jurisdiction is not to alter the terms and conditions of such loan agreement, which is a contract of private nature and the terms and conditions of such contract are not to be enforced in the public law remedy of writ jurisdiction. 9. In the afore-stated view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to keep this writ petition pending, save and except observing that in the event the respondent nos. 7 & 8 contemplate to take recovery of the subject-vehicle for violation of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement including default in depositing the EMIs by the petitioner, then the same must be carried in strict compliance of the Master Circular dated 28.09.2006 of the Reserve Bank of India and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Kaur [supra] and Kaushal Kishor [supra] plus the loan agreement entered into Page No.# 5/5 by the petitioner and the respondent bank authorities. By recalling the interim order passed earlier, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant