IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22069 of 2010(G)
1. SATHEESAN, S/O. PUSHKARA PANIKKAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. RAFI, S/O. DEVAKANNU,
5. V.JAYAKUMAR, THONI KONAM,
6. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 22069 OF 2010 G
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th August, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the
respondent No.2 not to harass the petitioner and not
to interfere with disputes between the petitioner and
respondent No.4.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the
respondent No.3 to see that the petitioner will not be
harassed by the respondent No.2.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner purchased a Bus from the fourth respondent,
who was the financier. Fifth respondent is the RC owner. There
were arrears due from the fifth respondent and the vehicle was
WPC.22069/2010 G 2
re-possessed and sold to the petitioner. Petitioner has to pay
Rs.1,10,000/= of which he paid Rs.60,000/=. Rs.50,000/=
remained to be paid within ten days from the date of the
agreement and at that time, the fourth respondent was to issue
the original RC Book and Clearance Certificate to the petitioner.
But, this was violated and the fourth respondent had not issued
the documents. Since the petitioner has not paid the balance
amount, the fourth respondent re-possessed the vehicle. There is
reference to proceedings of the Regional Transport Officer
demanding arrears of tax. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5
joined together and the fourth respondent filed a complaint
against the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter,
respondents 4 and 5 approached the second respondent Police
Officer who called the petitioner to the police station on several
occasions, compelling him to agree to the illegal demands. It is
stated that he has physically manhandled by the second
respondent and threatened that he will be charged with criminal
cases.
WPC.22069/2010 G 3
3. According to the learned Government Pleader, apart
from the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the vehicle,
what the petitioner has stated is otherwise correct. He would
submit that the second respondent will not interfere in the
matter, unless there is a lawful order from the Motor Vehicles
Authority for realisation of tax in which case the second
respondent may have to give assistance as per law. Apart from
that, there will be no harassment. We record the said
submissions and close the Writ Petition.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge