M/s Godara Transport Company And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

I) Respondent no. 1 be restrained from doing any proceeding u/s 50 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in regard to truck bearing registration no. ""RJ07-GC-

1906"", Chassis No. MAT448037G5A00243, Engine No. 51M84272781 and if anything has been done then same may be reverted back to the position

as on date 11.12.2018;

ii) Respondent no.2 be directed to release the truck bearing registration no ""RJ07-GC-1906"". Chassis No. MAT448037G5A00243, Engine No.

51M84272781 and incidental proceedings in this regard be quashed;

iii) Respondent no. 2 be directed to compensate petitioners for the illegal losses which has been caused to the petitioners due to illegal activity of the

employees of respondent no. 2

iv) Respondent no. 2 be directed not to take law in their own hand with respect to other trucks financed by them and in the possession of the

petitioners and even if some grievances are there then procedure established by law is compliedin letter and spirit;

v) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of

petitioner;

vi) Cost of filing the present writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioners and the respondents may be directed to pay the same.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners took a loan from the respondent No.2 under loan agreement dated 31.03.2015 (Annex.-R2/2) with

regard to vehicle No.RJ07-GC- 1906. When the petitioners fail to repay the loan amount, the respondent No.2 has seized the vehicle in question, as

per condition No.11 of the loan agreement.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have took loan from the respondent No.3 and they have never executed any agreement of

loan on their vehicle from respondent No.2. Counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 has wrongly used the papers lying, with them and forged

agreement has been created in this regard and the petitioners have also lodged an FIR against the officer of respondent No.2. Counsel further

submitted that the transport department in connivance with the respondent No.2 has wrongly entered the hypothecation of the vehicle with the

respondent No.2 in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question.

Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the disputed question of the facts are involved in this matter. Counsel further submitted that the

respondent No.2 has rightly seized the vehicle in question, as per terms and conditions of the agreement because the petitioners failed to repay the

loan amount to the respondent No.2. Counsel further submitted that the vehicle in question is hypothecated with respondent No.2 and same also

entered in registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that they have made payment directly to the

dealer with regard to vehicle in question.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons; firstly,

disputed question of facts are involved in this matter, hence, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India; secondly, as per the registration certificate issued by the RTO, Bikaner the vehicle has been financed by respondent No.2

i.e. cholamandalam investment and finance company limited, and when the petitioners failed to repay the loan amount to the respondent No.2, in my

considered view, the respondent No.2 has rightly seized the vehicle in question, in view of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.