IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37700 of 2008(K)
1. SALIM A, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN, HDFC BANK,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BDFC BANK LTD.,
3. THE MANAGER,HDFC BANK LTD.,
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM
5. THE R.T.O. KOLLAM, OFFICE OF
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.MILTON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/12/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C)No. 37700 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 3
in seizing a vehicle hypothecated to them by the petitioner, which was
purchased by the petitioner with financial assistance from respondents
1 to 3. The petitioner now seeks the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents and declare that the
seizure and sale of the vehicle bearing registration No.
KL02Z9925 belonging to the petitioner is null and void.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over
possession of the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith.
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 to 3 to
restructure/reschedule the credit facility of the petitioner.”
Respondents 1 to 3 are not entities against which this court can
issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the
purpose of making the writ petition maintainable, the 4th respondent has
been impleaded, with a vague averment that it was with the help of the
4th respondent that the vehicle has been seized. But in the writ petition
it is candidly admitted that the vehicle was seized by an advocate on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, who has not been impleaded in this
W.P(C)No. 37700 of 2008 – 2 –
writ petition. That being so, on the basis of such vague averments
against the 4th respondent, I am not inclined to entertain this writ
petition. I am of opinion that the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a
suit against respondents 1 to 3 for the reliefs now sought by the
petitioner. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to such right
of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs