IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35573 of 2010(V)
1. MOHANAN P.P. S/O. PARAMESWARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER, SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
3. THE CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE
4. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :06/12/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.35573 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ or direction directing the
respondents 2 to 4 to afford proper and
adequate police protection to the life and
property of the petitioner from the threat of the
first respondent and their hired Goondas, agents
and servants from re-possessing the vehicle of
the petitioner by using illegal methods and by
using force.
B. Direct the second respondent to take
proper and adequate preventive action against
first respondent and their agents, servants, and
hired Goondas from causing any untoward
incident against the petitioner, his family and his
vehicle.
2. Also there is a direction sought to dispose of Ext.P2
representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for
personal hearing.
W.P.C.No.35573 of 2010 2
3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
4. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
1st respondent for purchasing a vehicle. According to the
petitioner, the amounts were cleared off. However, it is the case
of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, his agents and hired
goondas are trying to repossess the vehicle of the petitioner by
using force and illegal methods. There is threat to the life of the
petitioner and to the lives of the members of his family unless he
surrenders the vehicle.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned
Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that
amounts are due even after the petitioner was given the benefit
of rescheduling in the year 2009. However, he submits that the
1st respondent will not resort to any illegal or forcible method to
repossess the vehicle. The 1st respondent will proceed only in
accordance with law.
W.P.C.No.35573 of 2010 3
7. We record the submission and dispose of the writ
petition directing that if contrary to the submission of the 1st
respondent, the 1st respondent attempts to illegally repossess the
vehicle and a complaint is lodged by the petitioner to the 4th
respondent, the 4th respondent will look into it and if the threat is
found to be genuine, he shall afford protection against such
repossession. This judgment will not stand in the way of the 1st
respondent approaching before the competent forum and
securing appropriate orders.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.35573 of 2010 4
W.P.C.No.35573 of 2010 5
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010