IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6642 of 2009(A)
1. NAGARAJAN.G, S/O.GOVINDASWAMY, 230,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
3. M/S.FAROOQ CONSTRUCTIONS, FATHIMA
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 6642 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the registered owner of Vibratory
Road Roller bearing Reg.No.TN 46 E 8974. The vehicle was
leased to the 3rd respondent for a monthly rental of
Rs.1,05,000/-(the rate of rent is not accepted by the 3rd
respondent). The 3rd respondent entered into an agreement
with the second respondent for construction of a four line road.
The 3rd respondent deployed the vehicle belonging to the
petitioner, aforementioned, covered by Ext.P1 Registration
Certificate also for the purpose of the same. It seems that
there arose a dispute between respondents 2 and 3 regarding
the execution of the work. According to the 2nd respondent,
the 3rd respondent abandoned the work. The 3rd respondent, at
the time of commencing the work, declared that he was in
possession of two other vehicles. The vehicle belonging to the
petitioner was also brought to the site by the 3rd respondent.
But when the work was stopped, the vehicle was not taken
WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009
: 2 :
back by the 3rd respondent or returned to the owner.
According to the 3rd respondent, second respondent did not
permit him to do so.
2. Petitioner sent Ext.P1 notice to the second
respondent demanding release of the vehicle. This was
replied vide Ext.P4, essentially pointing out the alleged breach
committed by the 3rd respondent. There is also a statement in
Ext.P4 to the effect that the petitioner has not produced any
document before the second respondent to prove his
ownership of the vehicle or the terms and conditions under
which the same was entrusted to M/s.Farooq Construction.
This writ petition has been filed requiring the second
respondent to release the vehicle.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second
respondent, asserting that the vehicle was brought to the site
by the contractor and therefore they are entitled to exercise a
lien over the same.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel for the 3rd
WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009
: 3 :
respondent.
5. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle covered by
Ext.P1 Registration Certificate. It was taken on hire by 3rd
respondent who deployed it in site, for the purpose of the
work entrusted to him by the second respondent. But that will
not enable the second respondent to exercise a lien over a
property belonging to the petitioner with whom the second
respondent has no privity of contract. I also take note of the
averments in the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent that the 3rd respondent had declared that he has in
his possession two vehicles to be used for the work in
question. That did not include the vehicle belonging to the
petitioner. Contractual dispute between Respondents 2 and 3
are to be resolved as per terms and conditions of their
agreement. Petitioner cannot be brought within the purview
of their dispute. The 2nd respondent is an instrumentality of
the State it is therefore bound to act in a fair manner.
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second
WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009
: 4 :
respondent to release the vehicle covered by Ext.P1
Registration certificate to the petitioner on the petitioner
approaching the second respondent in this regard along with
the original Registration Certificate relating to the said vehicle.
Writ petition is disposed as above.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
jma