JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for the respondent bank. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent bank had sanctioned an Over Draft Loan of Rs.20.00 crores secured by Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs), for the purpose of opening a Mega Food Park at Dimapur, which was initiated by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), Government of India. The sanctioned Over Draft Loan of Rs.20.00 crores was however reduced to 14.00 crores. The grievance of the petitioner is that the loan had been sanctioned to the petitioner as a Term Loan by the respondent bank instead of Over an Draft loan, without the approval of the petitioner, thereby charging abnormally high interest rates, though the loan had been covered by the FDRs. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the above anomaly in the manner of charging interest by the respondent bank, the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 27.09.2019 to the Chief Manager of the respondent bank, authorising him to close the Over Draft loan drawn by the petitioner. He also submits that the respondent bank, vide letter dated 01.09.2020 issued by the Chief Manager and addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Dibrugarh, had spoken of the fact that due to some technical error, the system was charging more than the actual rate of interest as specified in the sanction letter. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the above clearly goes to show that the respondent bank should have sanctioned an Over Draft Loan and not a Term Loan. He also submits that the letter dated 27.09.2019 issued by the petitioner has not been decided by the respondent bank and no reply to the said letter has been received till now. 5. The counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as there are efficacious alternative remedies available to the petitioner, who can approach the Civil Courts or the Debt Recovery Tribunal with regard to their claim, which pertains to disputed questions of facts and banking procedure. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner’s requests to close the Over Draft loan facility is misplaced, as the account is not an Over Draft account. It is a term loan account with fixed repayment obligations. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner’s requests to close the Over Draft loan facility is misplaced, as the account is not an Over Draft account. It is a term loan account with fixed repayment obligations. As such, no unilateral closure can be undertaken, without full settlement or full payment of the total outstanding amount, including applicable interest and charges. The respondent’s counsel further case is that the total outstanding amount in the account of the petitioner is Rs.1,78,89,398/- as on date and unless the said amount is paid by the petitioner, no closure proceeding can be entertained. The respondent’s counsel further submits that the petitioner’s letter seeking closure was duly considered but rejected, as the petitioner had yet to fully discharge it’s liability. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The respondent Bank’s further case is that when the sanction letter dated 29.03.2017 had clearly mentioned that a fresh Term Loan of 20.00 crores had been sanctioned, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that the Term Loan should have been an Over Draft Loan account, by filing this writ petition 7 years later, i.e. on 25.11.2024. The stand of the respondent bank is also to the effect also shows that the funds were disbursed under a Term Loan through Trust and Retention Accounts (TRA), which is a standard operating account under MoFPI guidelines and RBI norms. Further, there is still an outstanding amount payable by the petitioner, i.e. Rs.1,78,89,398/-, for which the account could not be closed. 8. The petitioner has raised various issues against the respondent bank. Suffice to say that there are numerous disputed questions of facts. The bank has taken a stand that the loan that was sanctioned to the petitioner was a Term Loan, vide sanction letter dated 29.03.2017 and that the sanctioned Term Loan had been disbursed. 9. The above stands taken by the parties clearly show that unless there is clearance of the dues by the petitioner, there is no question of the respondent bank allowing the closure of the loan account of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has cleared his dues/loan and whether the account should have been an Over Draft Account is a question of fact, which will have to be decided by looking into the various documents executed between the parties and adducing evidence by the parties. Whether the petitioner has cleared his dues/loan and whether the account should have been an Over Draft Account is a question of fact, which will have to be decided by looking into the various documents executed between the parties and adducing evidence by the parties. As such, this Court is not in a position to decide the factual issues which requires recording of evidence. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present case is not maintainable before a Writ Court. Further, there is nothing to show that any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, for which the petitioner had to approach a Writ Court for redressal of any enforceable right. The issue raised by the petitioner is a private dispute, between the parties. As there are efficacious alternative remedies available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the alternative remedies available for redressal of his grievance. The Writ Court is not a Forum for deciding the issues raised by the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, as it is not maintainable.