High Court Kerala High Court

Shriram Transport Finance … vs The Station House Officer on 20 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shriram Transport Finance … vs The Station House Officer on 20 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24220 of 2008(G)


1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

2. MR.K.A. JAMES, S/O. K.A.ABRAHAM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/08/2008

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                      ===============
                   W.P.(C) NO. 24220 OF 2008 G
                  ====================

             Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner complains that he being the financier of vehicle

KL-5/S-3839, the 2nd respondent registered owner had

surrendered the vehicle to them. According to them, at a later

stage, the 1st respondent had instructed them to produce the

vehicle before them and on its production vehicle was detained

by the 1st respondent. Despite request, the vehicle was not

released and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition,

praying for orders directing its release.

2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits

that though the vehicle was initially reported to be missing, it

was later found out and that there were some disputes involving

the vehicle which were also understood to have been discussed

between the rival claimants.

3. It is stated that the 1st respondent had not directed for

the production of the vehicle and that the vehicle is also not in

the custody of the 1st respondent and is not involved in any case.

WPC 24220/08
:2 :

However, it is admitted that the vehicle is still parked outside the

police station and the 1st respondent submits that it is open to

the petitioner to take the vehicle if they are so entitled.

4. In view of the above submissions, the direction sought

for by the writ petitioner is unnecessary and it is clarified that if

the petitioner is so entitled, the petitioner is free to take the

possession of the vehicle referred to above, from where it is now

available.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp