IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34865 of 2008(A)
1. BABU.M.C, S/O. CYRIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/11/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).34865/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner availed a loan from the third
respondent Bank for purchasing a vehicle. According
to the petitioner, there is a hypothecation agreement.
Admittedly, there is default in the re-payment of the
loan. Petitioner submits that agents at the instigation
of the third respondent have been threatening him of
re-possession of the vehicle. Petitioner has filed Ext.P6
complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police and he
has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:-
(a). A writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
directing respondents 1 and 2 to
prevent 3rd respondent and his men
from forcefully re-possession of
petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.KL.7Y.
7999, Toyota Qualis
(b). Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or
W.P.(C).34865/2008
2
direction directing respondent No.1 and
2 to consider and take action on Ext.P6
forthwith.
2. In my view, petitioner does not have a cause of
action at this stage. If the third respondent re-possesses
the vehicle, otherwise than in accordance with law,
obviously petitioner would have a cause of action at that
stage. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakashkaur and Others
(2007 (2) SCC 711) and by this Court in Shibi
Francis v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 923)
and Bhahuleyan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT
402), no doubt reiterates the view that re-possession of
vehicle by a financier shall not be effected, by using
musclemen or by hiring recovery agents in derogation of
the due process. At this stage, I do not find any reason
why such a direction should be issued to the third
respondent. Obviously, the law laid down by the
Supreme court is binding on all persons concerned
including the petitioner and the third respondent.
W.P.(C).34865/2008
3
3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing
the first respondent to look into Ext.P6 and take
appropriate action thereon and register a crime if it
discloses any cognizance offence and then proceed
further as contemplated by the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs