WP(C) 6193/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Handique, l earned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as well as the lea rned standing counsel for the respondent No.5. None appears for the respondent N os.1, 2 and 6. The petitioner, who was sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- as loan fr om the respondent bank, in the present petition has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2002 issued to him, notice dated 12.11.2003 issued to his guarantor Nabaku mar Biswas, notice dated 05.07.2003 to said Nabakumar Biswas, apart from claimin g the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for delay in releasing the balance loan amou nt. By notice dated 26.03.2002 the respondent bank asked the petitioner to pay a certain sum with interest. By notice dated 12.11.2002 the respondent bank asked the petitioner’s guarantor, who is not a party to the present proceeding, to pa y the said sum. By notice dated 05.07.2003 the Block Elementary Education Office r asked said Nabakumar Biswas, the guarantor, to take necessary steps for paymen t of the loan. According to the petitioner though the said amount Rs.2,05,000/- was san ctioned by the respondent bank on 10.04.1995, only an amount of Rs.80,000/- was released in his favour, for which he could not complete the project and though t he petitioner had been given assurance from the bank authorities regarding relea se of remaining amount, but till date the same has not been released. The petiti oner, therefore, submits that the said amount of Rs.80,000/- cannot be claimed b y the respondent bank, more particularly the interest thereof. According to the petitioner, for non-releasing the balance amount, he has suffered a heavy loss. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded as compensation. The dispute raised in the present writ proceeding cannot be decided in e xercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as i t requires recording of evidence, which can conveniently be done by the appropri ate Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. That apart, the person to w hom the notices dated 12.11.2002 and 05.07.2003 were issued has not challenged t he same. That being the position, the relief as claimed in the present petition c annot be granted. The petitioner may, however, approach the appropriate Civil Co urt having jurisdiction over the matter, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.