JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record of the case, in our considered view, the proper remedy of the petitioner appears to be to approach the respondent Nos.1/2 – United Bank of India, Silchar Branch, Silchar and submit a proper representation to enable them to take a decision on the same keeping in view the prayer made by the petitioner for liquidating their loan liability arising out of the loan transaction. So far as this Court is concerned, we do not have any jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned action because even according to the writ petitioner he being a defaulter is liable to repay the money. In other words, there is no legal issue that arises for consideration in the case. It is for the Bank now to decide whether any indulgence can still be granted to the petitioner in payment of the remaining amount to liquidate the liability and if so how and in what manner? We cannot nor we wish to express any opinion on this issue - that being the sole discretion of the Bank. We therefore leave the issue at this stage and without expressing any opinion on the grievance raised by the petitioner, grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Bank for deciding his grievance in the representation which he propose to make. With this observation and liberty, we decline to entertain the writ petition on merits and accordingly dispose of the writ petition without calling upon the respondents to file a reply to the petition. No cost.