M/s Godara Transport Company 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 51 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in regard to truck bearing registration no. ""RJ07-GC-

1903"", Chassis No. MAT448037G5A00241, Engine No.51M84273881 and registration No.""RJ07-GC- 1904"" having Chassis

No.MAT448037G5A00239, Engine No.51M84274118 if anything has been done then same may be reverted back to the position as on date

09.04.2019;

ii) Respondent no.2 be directed to release the truck bearing registration no ""RJ07-GC-1903"". Chassis No. MAT448037G5A00241, Engine No.

51M84273881 and registration No.""RJ07-GC- 1904"" having Chassis No.MAT448037G5A00239, Engine No.51M84274118 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 complied in 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

Nos.RJ07-GC- 1903 and RJ07-GC-1904. When the petitioners fail to repay the loan amount, the respondent No.2 has seized the vehicles 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 vehicles 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 officers 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 vehicles with the

respondent No.2 in the registration certificate of the vehicles 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 vehicles in question are hypothecated with respondent No.2 and same also

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

dealer with regard to vehicles 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 vehicles have 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 vehicles in question, in view of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

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