JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This writ petition has been filed praying for recovery of the vehicle bearing registration number OR-04-E-4717 from opposite party No. 2-Bank and to hand over the same to the petitioner and for a direction that the tax and penalty for the seizure period be recovered from opposite party No. 2 and further to cancel the licence of opposite party No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner took a loan from the IndusInd Bank Limited for pur¬chase of a truck bearing registration number OR-04-E-4717. It is alleged that though the petitioner was paying the instalments regularly, the truck in question was taken possession of by the Bank authorities by use of force, as alleged, on 10.6.2007. Although the petitioner moved the authorities for release of the truck, they did not release the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum registered as C.C.Case No. 372 of 2007 and the Consumer Forum on 19.7.2007 passed the following order : “Learned counsel for the complainant in the misc. case prays release of the vehicle bearing No. OR-04-E-4717 which has been seized by the O.P. on 10.6.07 when two nos. of E.M.Is. were in default. Learned counsel for the O.P. though objects, concedes to the prayer of his counterpart on the condition that all the defaulted E.M.Is. would be paid within 7 days prior to release of the vehicle. With the above, we direct the O.P. for release of the vehicle within 7 days subject to clearance of up-to-date default¬ed E.M.Is. and further direct the complainant to become regular in payment of future E.M.Is. failing which the O.P. will be at liberty to take action as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.” Learned counsel for the O.P. files objection to the amendment petition filed by the learned counsel for the complain¬ant. Heard. directed as under.” 3. It is alleged that though the petitioner submitted the aforesaid order alongwith representation dated 23.7.2007 before O.P.No. 2 for release of the vehicle, the O.P.No. 2 demanded for total closure of the amount. 4. Pursuant to notice, the Bank has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the order of the Consumer Forum, the petitioner has neither given any representation nor made any deposit as directed by the District Consumer Forum. 4. Pursuant to notice, the Bank has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the order of the Consumer Forum, the petitioner has neither given any representation nor made any deposit as directed by the District Consumer Forum. It has been further stated therein that as the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the instalment and the defaulted amount was more than Rs. 1,25,521.00 by 19.4.2007, the Bank issued registered notice to the petitioner for clearance of the defaulted amount and as the petitioner did not clear the outstanding dues, the Bank was forced to seize the vehicle on 10.6.2007 as per Clause 15(2) of the Loan Agreement filed as Annexure-A/2. The Bank has denied the fact of filing of any representation by the petitioner. It is emphatically asserted in the counter affidavit that the Bank has never adopted any strong armed practice to seize the vehicle. Therefore, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in Manager, ICICI, Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others, (2007) 36 OCR (SC) 815, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Bank in seizing the vehicle in the manner it has been done is illegal. 6. No doubt, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has deprecated the practice of hiring recovery agents who are musclemen and observed that the Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics. In this case while the petitioner has alleged use of force by the Bank to seize the vehicle, the Bank has strongly denied the said allegations and asserted that the vehicle has been seized as per Clause 15(2) of the Loan Agreement. Since this is a disputed question of fact, we are not inclined to decide the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, we direct that on the petitioner depositing the defaulted EMIs, the Bank shall forthwith release the vehicle in his favour. It is needless to say that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty for the seizure period which shall be paid by the Bank. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, we direct that on the petitioner depositing the defaulted EMIs, the Bank shall forthwith release the vehicle in his favour. It is needless to say that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty for the seizure period which shall be paid by the Bank. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.