JUDGMENT : B. Mohanty, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for directing the Registering Authority (Opposite Party No. 1) not to effect change of ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-04-N4986 as the documents have been forcibly obtained from the petitioner. He has further prayed for a direction to the appropriate authority to conduct enquiry into the crime as has been committed in collusion with the Barchana Police and further for a direction to charge sheet the Recovery Officer of the HDFC Bank along with his musclemen. 2. The facts of the case according to the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner took a loan in the year 2008 from opposite party No. 4 for purchasing a commercial vehicle. He availed another loan from opposite party No. 4 in the year 2011 and again purchased a commercial vehicle. The vehicle was registered before the R.T.O. Chandikhol vide Registration Certificate under Annexure-1. For availing the aforesaid loan, the petitioner signed a composite loan agreement vide Loan Account No. 3393644 and as per the conditions of the said agreement, he was to repay an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- in 46 EMIs. The petitioner cleared the EMIs upto the year 2012 and thereafter he could not pay the installments on account of set back in the business as a result of which the vehicle remained off the road. At this juncture the Bank-Opposite Party No. 4 appointed a sole Arbitrator without consent of the petitioner and the Arbitrator passed an award in favour of the Bank on 23.9.2012. The petitioner was warned to pay the awarded amount within seven days. Later, the Bank initiated Execution Case No. 17 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, Jajpur in order to realise the awarded amount. With much difficulty by the year 2014, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-. It is in such background, on 8.2.2016 the opposite party No. 4-Bank hired musclemen to forcibly dispossess the petitioner and using them took away the vehicle with the help of Police after forcing the petitioner to sign an undertaking on a plain paper. Though the petitioner immediately reported the matter before the Barchana Police Station, however, Barchana Police being hand in gloves did not register his complaint. Though the petitioner immediately reported the matter before the Barchana Police Station, however, Barchana Police being hand in gloves did not register his complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner left for his native place in Bihar to attend a family function and on returning to Odisha on 26.2.2016 sent a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur. In such background, the petitioner has pleaded that dispossessing the petitioner of the vehicle despite substantial payment was illegal and arbitrary. Opposite Party No. 3, who happens to be the I.I.C. of Barchana Police Station in his reply has disputed the case of the petitioner with regard to use of force to dispossess him of his vehicle. Further, he has stated that on 8.2.2016 neither the petitioner had gone to Barchana Police Station nor was he forced to sign an undertaking on a plain paper. He has further averred that neither the petitioner nor his family members had reported the Barchana Police Station regarding assault on him and his family members by the hired goondas of HDFC Bank and forcible destruction of his property. According to him, the petitioner failed to pay the EMIs fixed by the Bank and the Bank Authorities decided to repossess the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-O4-N-4986. Accordingly, on 8.2.2016 they presented pre-repossession intimation at Barchana Police Station and on the same day after taking repossession of the vehicle, they presented post-repossession intimation at Police Station along with a surrender letter duly signed by the petitioner. He has further indicated that during repossession process no police personnel were deputed to assist/support the Bank staff. He has filed pre-repossession intimation, post-repossession intimation and surrender letter signed by the petitioner under Annexure-A/3 Series. Further it is his stand that on verification from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, it has been ascertained that no Registered letter has been received on this score by that office. Lastly, he has stated that the present writ application is misconceived as it involves disputed questions of fact. The stand of Opposite Party No. 4 in his affidavit is that the allegations made by the petitioner as contained in Paragraph-11 of the writ application are frivolous allegations and the same have been made with an intention to deprive the Bank from exercising its right under the loan agreement executed between the petitioner and the Bank. The stand of Opposite Party No. 4 in his affidavit is that the allegations made by the petitioner as contained in Paragraph-11 of the writ application are frivolous allegations and the same have been made with an intention to deprive the Bank from exercising its right under the loan agreement executed between the petitioner and the Bank. It also disputes and denies the allegations on use of force for taking repossession and forcing petitioner to sign a plain paper document. Its further stand is that the petitioner had availed a loan during the year 2008 with loan Account No. 3190056. As against the said loan total loan overdue amount was Rs. 12,933/- as on 30.11.2017. With regard to second loan covered by loan Account No. 3393644 the outstanding due as on 30.11.2017 was Rs. 20,16,843/-. The Bank has further submitted that during pendency of the writ application it has received a letter dated 28.9.2017 vide Annexure-B from the petitioner making a request for settlement of the second loan Account No. 3393644 through One Time Settlement. Thereafter, vide legal notice dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure-C) the petitioner demanded issuance of No Objection Certificate under the threat of proposed legal action. Despite this, opposite party no. 4 in its reply dated 13.12.2017 vide Annexure-D intimated to the petitioner that the Bank was willing to settle both the loan accounts for an amount of Rs. 15,85,347/- which should be paid by 31.12.2017. However, there has been no response from the side of the petitioner. Lastly, he submitted that no illegality has been committed in taking possession of the vehicle as such action is authorised as per the clauses of the loan agreement. In this context, he relied upon Clause-17 of the loan agreement. 3. Heard Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Transport, Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. R. Roy, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 4. 4. Mr. Bhuyan strenuously argued that opposite party no. 4 has committed grave illegality in forcefully taking possession of the vehicle in connivance with the police personnel of Barchana Police Station despite clearance of substantial loan amount. In such background, the vehicle ought to be handed back to the petitioner. Secondly, he contended that the loan agreements are void ab initio being unilateral in character and, therefore, opposite party no. In such background, the vehicle ought to be handed back to the petitioner. Secondly, he contended that the loan agreements are void ab initio being unilateral in character and, therefore, opposite party no. 4 cannot derive any benefit or take any action based on such void and illegal agreement. Mr. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that police never helped the Opposite Party No. 4 in taking repossession of the vehicle. Police personnel were never deputed to assist the Bank staff during repossession process. Relying on the surrender letter under Annexure-A/3 Series he submitted that the petitioner himself had surrendered the vehicle and the Bank took possession of the same in accordance with the right vested with the Bank as per the composite loan agreement for commercial vehicle. He also reiterated that neither the petitioner ever came to Barchana Police Station on 08.02.2016 nor had given any written report for taking action against the staff of the Bank. He also reiterated the fact that no Registered letter under Annexure-4 has ever been received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur. Rather he raised a doubt regarding despatch of the letter under Annexure-4 as no registered letter receipt has been produced by the petitioner in support of such despatch. Further he submitted that though this Court has granted time on 11.01.2019 to the petitioner to file his rejoinder, however, no rejoinder was/has been filed. Lastly, he submitted that the present case involves disputed questions of fact relating to use of force and thus the same ought not to be entertained. Mr. Roy while disputing the use of force in taking possession submitted that the submission of Mr. Bhuyan on the loan agreement being ab initio void should be ignored as the petitioner has never challenged the same. Further even if the loan agreements are challenged, writ Court has no jurisdiction in such matter and even otherwise such challenge would be highly belated. He also pointed out that the writ application is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of facts. On the allegations of use of force in taking repossession and forcing the petitioner to sign on a plain paper, he denied such allegations. He further submitted that though by 30.11.2017, the loan outstanding in respect of two agreements was Rs. He also pointed out that the writ application is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of facts. On the allegations of use of force in taking repossession and forcing the petitioner to sign on a plain paper, he denied such allegations. He further submitted that though by 30.11.2017, the loan outstanding in respect of two agreements was Rs. 20,29,776/- and though vide Annexure-D dated 13.12.2017 the Bank has offered to settle both the loan accounts on payment of Rs. 15,85,347/- by 31.12.2017 during pendency of the writ application, after giving a substantial waiver, however, the petitioner has maintained a silence on the same. Despite taking time for filing of rejoinder, the petitioner never cared to file the same. Lastly he submitted that as per Clause-17.2(i) of the loan agreement, the Bank can take possession/ recover the vehicle in case of default in clearing the loan. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Bank in taking repossession of the vehicle. In this context, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of K. Mathai @ Babu and Another vs. Kora Bibikutty and Another, 1996 SCC 212 , Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others vs. Sudhir Mehera, (2001) 7 SCC 417 , ORIX Auto Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Jagmander Singh and Another, (2006) 2 SCC 598 and Anup Srmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 400 . He put heavy emphasis on Paragraph-9 of the judgment rendered in ORIX Auto Finance (India) Limited (supra) wherein it has been made clear that if agreement permits the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. Mere fact that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced. Accordingly, he submitted that the writ application is without any merit and ought to be dismissed. 5. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows: The petitioner had taken loan for purchasing a vehicle vide loan Account No. 3190056 which was disbursed in the year 2008. As against the said loan, outstanding as on 30.11.2017 was Rs. 12,933/-. He had availed another commercial vehicle loan during the year 2011 vide loan Account No. 3393644 pursuant to a Composite Loan Agreement. Clause-13 of the loan agreement indicates the "Events of Default" and Clasue-17 indicates Enforcement provisions. As against the said loan, outstanding as on 30.11.2017 was Rs. 12,933/-. He had availed another commercial vehicle loan during the year 2011 vide loan Account No. 3393644 pursuant to a Composite Loan Agreement. Clause-13 of the loan agreement indicates the "Events of Default" and Clasue-17 indicates Enforcement provisions. This loan agreement has been filed along with an affidavit dated 29.1.2019 by the opposite party no. 4. For the sake of convenience, Clauses 13 and 17 of the loan agreement are quoted below: "xxx xxx xxx 13. EVENTS OF DEFAULT The Borrower and/or the Guarantors expressly, irrevocably, jointly and severally agree with the Bank in the event of: 13.1 the Borrower of the Guarantors or any or more of them (in case of the Guarantors being more than one person) fails to pay any sum due from it or him herein. 13.2 the Borrower or any of the Guarantors fails duly to perform any obligation or commits any breach of any of the terms, representations, warranties, covenants and conditions herein contained or has made any misrepresentations to the Bank. 13.3 the Borrower or any of the Guarantors (in case of either of them being a corporation or partnership firm) takes any action or other steps are taken or legal proceedings are started for winding up, dissolution or reorganisation or for the appointment of a receiver, trustee or similar officer on its assets particularly on the Hypothecated Asset. 13.4 the Borrower or the Guarantors (in case of either of them being an individual and in case of the Guarantors, (if more than one, any of them) dies or takes any steps or any steps are taken with a view to his being made insolvent in any jurisdiction or with a view to the appointment of a receiver, trustee or similar officer or any of his assets. 13.5 the Borrower fails to pay any insurance premium for the Hypot hecated Asset or cheque bounce charges in terms and conditions hereof. 13.6 the Hypothecated Asset is confiscated, attached, taken into custody by any authority or subject to any execution proceeding. 13.7 the Hypothecated Asset is distraint, endangered or badly damaged due to accident or any other reason whatever causing the same to be a total loss in the opinion of the Bank or caused bodily injury to any person due to any accident or otherwise. 13.7 the Hypothecated Asset is distraint, endangered or badly damaged due to accident or any other reason whatever causing the same to be a total loss in the opinion of the Bank or caused bodily injury to any person due to any accident or otherwise. 13.8 the Borrower fails to pay any tax imposed, duty or other imposition or comply with any other formalities required for the Hypothecated Asset under law from time to time. 13.9 the Hypothecated Asset is stolen or untraceable for a period of 30 days for any reason whatever. 13.10 any of the cheques delivered or to be delivered by the Borrower to the Bank in terms and conditions hereof is not encashed for any reasons whatsoever on presentations. 13.11 any instructions given by the Borrower for stop payment of Post-Dated Cheques revoke SI/ECS instruction given as per clause 3, for any reasons whatsoever. 13.12 the Borrower fails to supply a certified true copy of the registration certificate within the time frames specified in clauses 5 and 8. 13.13 the Hypothecated Asset being destroyed for any reason whatsoever. 13.14 the Borrower fails to file the particulars of the Asset in the prescribed form of the Bank and as provided infrie Schedule to this Agreement. 13.15 Any information given by the Borrower and/or the Guarantors in his loan application to the Bank for financial assistance is found to be misleading or incorrect in any material respect or any representation or any warranty referred in Clause 8 is found to be incorrect. 13.16 the Asset has been used or alleged to have been used for any illegal purposes or activity. 13.17 Any circumstances arises which gives reasonable grounds in the opinion of the Bank that is likely to prejudice or endanger the Hypothecated Vehicle: Then in any such case at any time thereafter, without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the bank, the Bank may (but shall not be bound to do so), without the specific intervention of a court or any court order, by written notices to the Borrower and the Guarantors declare the loan to be immediately due and payable, whereupon the same shall become payable together with accrued interest thereon, the charges as set out in the schedule hereunder written and any other sums then owned by the Borrower herein. On the question whether any of the above events/circumstances has/have occurred/ happened, the decision of the Bank shall be final conclusive and binding on the Borrower and/or the Guarantors. xxx xxx xxx 17. ENFORCEMENT 17.1 if the Borrower fails to perform any of the obligations herein and the same (if capable of remedy) is not remedied to the satisfaction of the Bank within the period to be specified by the Bank. 17.2 any of the "Event of Default" pursuant to the terms of Clause 13 arise (Whether demand for repayments is actually made or not) then and in such case and at any time thereafter, the Bank through its officers, agents or nominees shall have the right (without prejudice to the rights of Clause 7) to take any one or more than one of the following actions without the specific intervention of a Court or any Court order. (i) without any notice and assigning any reason and at the risk and expense of the Borrower and if necessary as Attorney for and in the name of the Borrower take charge and/or possession of seize recover, appoint receiver of and remove the Hypothecated Asset. The Bank will be within its rights to use Tow-van to carry away the Asset. (ii) enter into or upon any place or premises where the Hypothecated Asset may be kept or stored and inspect, value or insure the same at the costs and expenses of the Borrower. (iii) shall by auction or by private contact or tender, dispatch or consign for realisation or otherwise dispose of or deal with the Hypothecated Asset in the manner the Bank may think fit. 17.3 The Borrower hereby agrees and authorises the officers, agents and nominees of the Bank to do and exercise any one or more than one of the acts and powers mentioned in Clause 13 and clause 6. 17.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary expressed or implied: (i) the Bank shall not be bound to exercise any of the powers mentioned in Clause 6 and Clause 13 or any Collateral Documents. (ii) if the Bank exercises any one or more powers mentioned in Clause 6 and clause 13 the same shall be without prejudice to the Bank's rights and remedies of any suit of any legal proceeding either pending or than may be initiated against the Borrower and or the Guarantors in law. (ii) if the Bank exercises any one or more powers mentioned in Clause 6 and clause 13 the same shall be without prejudice to the Bank's rights and remedies of any suit of any legal proceeding either pending or than may be initiated against the Borrower and or the Guarantors in law. (iii) the Bank or its officers, agents or nominees shall not be in any way responsible for any loss, damage limitation or depreciation that the Hypothecated Asset may suffer or sustain on any account whatsoever whilst the same is in possession of the Bank, its officers, agents or nominees or because of exercise or non-exercise of the rights, powers, or remedies available to the Bank or its officers, agents or nominees and all such loss, damage or depreciation shall be debited to the account of the Borrower howsoever the same may have been caused. (iv) neither the Bank nor its agents, officers or nominees shall be in any way responsible and liable and the Borrower hereby agrees not to make the Bank or its officers, agents of any nominees liable of any loss, damage, limitation or otherwise for any belongings and articles that may be kept or lying in the Hypothecated Asset at the time of taking charge and/or possession, seizure of the Hypothecated Asset pursuant to the terms of Clause 13 and Clause 15. xxx xxx xxx" A perusal of above quoted clauses would show that as per agreement between the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 in case of default in payment, opposite party No. 4 has got the right to take over possession of the vehicle. Initially on account of default in making payments, an Arbitration Proceeding vide No. 150 of 2012 was initiated which culminated in an award dated 23.9.2012 for an amount of Rs. 21,00,833.12 along with 18% interest till realisation. Thereafter, Execution Case No. 17 of 2013 was also levied against the petitioner. On 8.2.2016 vide Annexure-A/3 Series attached to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 3, the opposite party no. 3 gave pre repossession intimation to Barchana Police Station and after getting the vehicle repossessed and getting the surrender letter from the petitioner on the same date, i.e. 8.2.2016 under Annexure-A/3 Series, Opposite Party No. 4 submitted post-repossession intimation to Barchana Police Station. In both pre repossession intimation and post repossession intimations under Annexure-A/3 Series, opposite party no. 3 gave pre repossession intimation to Barchana Police Station and after getting the vehicle repossessed and getting the surrender letter from the petitioner on the same date, i.e. 8.2.2016 under Annexure-A/3 Series, Opposite Party No. 4 submitted post-repossession intimation to Barchana Police Station. In both pre repossession intimation and post repossession intimations under Annexure-A/3 Series, opposite party no. 4 has made it clear that they are exercising their rights under the loan agreement/composite loan agreement for taking repossession. During pendency of writ though vide Annexure-B, the petitioner wrote to opposite party No. 4 to settle the matter and though the opposite party No. 4 made an offer vide Annexure-D giving substantial waiver to the petitioner, however, the petitioner remained unresponsive. 6. Now coming to the contentions of the parties. Though it has been submitted from the side of the petitioner that on 8.2.2016 repossession was taken by the Bank with the support of Barchana Police Station by making use of hired musclemen and by assaulting the petitioner and his family members and though such a matter was reported to Barchana Police Station, Barchana but the Police had remained silent in the matter, however, opposite party no. 3 in his reply has clearly disputed the same and has made it clear that during repossession process no police personnel was deputed to assist the Bank staff. He also pointed out that on 8.2.2016 neither the petitioner visited Barchana Police Station nor gave any report for taking action against repossession staff. The Opposite Party No. 4 has also denied use of force in taking possession. Thus, with regard to use of force, while the petitioner says force was used with police support, the opposite party nos.3 & 4 have denied the same. Further despite taking time to file rejoinder, the petitioner never come forward with a rejoinder. Thus, this Court is faced with two opposing versions of the same incident. Therefore, in a true sense this Court is confronted with disputed of questions of fact, which cannot be decided by a writ court. Further there exists no authentic evidence of the petitioner ever approaching the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur in the matter as he has not proved the despatch of the registered letter by producing at least the registered letter receipt. Further there exists no authentic evidence of the petitioner ever approaching the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur in the matter as he has not proved the despatch of the registered letter by producing at least the registered letter receipt. Rather as facts reveal, after the incident, he went back to his native place in Bihar to attend a family function and after returning from the said function, i.e. after a lapse of 18 days on 26.2.2016 vide Annexure-4 he has taken a stand that he complained to the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur. But as indicated earlier there exists no authentic proof of the petitioner despatching Annexure-4 to the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur. Apart from this, it is not known why the petitioner did not approach the appropriate Court by filing complaint petition. All these make version of the petitioner little doubtful. 7. With regard to the second submission that opposite party no. 4 could not have acted upon the loan agreement which empowers them to go for repossession as the same is one sided and ab initio void, it may be noted here that the petitioner has nowhere challenged the same. Further he cannot raise such plea at this belated stage after deriving benefit out of the same. The agreement was signed on 26.11.2011. For all these years, he never raised a finger against the same. Now in order to attack taking repossession of vehicle, which is permissible under loan agreement, such a desperate plea has been taken, which ought to be ignored. Secondly, a perusal of the above indicated Supreme Court decisions makes it clear that financier has a right to resume possession in terms of the agreement and such a thing cannot amount to a criminal offence. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner defaulted in paying installments and in such background, repossession of vehicle was taken, which is clearly permissible as per Clause-17 of the loan agreement. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the opposite party no. 4 in taking repossession. Therefore, the prayer for a direction to the Registering Authority not to effect any transfer/change of ownership of vehicle is wholly misconceived. 8. For all these reasons, this writ application is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.