M. Raghunadanan vs Ratheesh, Kailas Associates and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The petitioner states that he is a retired bank manager. He availed a car loan from a bank of which the third respondent is the manager. He came to this Court alleging that respondents 1 and 2 are engaged to re-possess the vehicle and also to threaten the petitioner even when he is willing to pay off the outstandings. An interim order was issued on 3.9.2010. In terms thereof, the third respondent states that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been received. We could see that the allegation of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 were involved in the alleged exercise is not unfounded. We did not, however, want to say anything further on that since it is a matter which has to be taken care of by the police. No commercial operator can take law into its hands. Equally, no extra constitutional power point can be permitted to function in this Nation at the peril of law and order. Rule of law has to be protected. We are, therefore, sure that the 4th respondent has to take care of any complaint that is made on the basis of specific facts and allegations in regard to any question of unlawful activities in connection with hypothecated goods, including vehicles, particularly because the Apex Court has categorically come down quite heavily on such illegal activities. We, therefore, direct the third respondent and the writ petitioner to appear in the office of the 4th respondent on 12.10.2010 so that a date could be appropriately fixed by that office to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent, either by the 4th respondent himself or through an appropriate subordinate to be told that civil disputes are not matters to be resolved through extra legal means and also to ensure that a viable solution is arrived at to any existing dispute.

In the mean while, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the entire outstandings, it is directed that the petitioner shall remit to the third respondent amounts at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month, payable on or before the 15th of every month commencing from October, 2010 to ensure regularisation of the transaction or closure of the same as may be decided upon by both parties. This arrangement is only to prompt a settlement and does not preclude legal remedies of either side. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.