Raveendran K.V. vs Superintendent of Police and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner by removing the threat from respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen and to ensure that the Stage Carriage of the petitioner bearing Registration No. KL-13/M 5899 is not forcibly taken by respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen and to allow the petitioner to operate the said stage carriage free from any such threat for the smooth functioning of his business.

ii) to issue appropriate direction or orders directing respondents 4 and 5 not to initiate any coercive steps/forceful dispossession against the Stage Carriage of the petitioner bearing Reg. No. KL-13/M.5899 and not to threaten the petitioner in connection with financial liability and to direct them to furnish the exact particulars of payments to be remitted by the petitioner without demanding unreasonable exorbitant amount.

iii) to issue appropriate writ orders or directions declaring that the petitioner''s loan liability towards respondents 4 and 5 finance company is only a civil liability without treating the same as Hirer and Financier relationship on Hire Purchase Agreement and if any liability is to be recovered the same can be only by resorting to due process of law without venturing to forcible dispossession and threat against the petitioner and his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-13/M.5899.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage Carriage. He availed a loan of Rs.8 lakhs from the 4th respondent finance company. According to the petitioner petitioner has paid substantial portion of the amount and only Rs.72,000/- remains to be paid. In the meantime, efforts are made by the party respondents to repossess the vehicle. This is against the law laid down by this Court and also by the Apex Court, it is submitted. Hence petitioner seeks police protection.

We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that respondents 4 and 5 will take steps in accordance with law and they will not repossess the vehicle forcibly. He would point out that petitioner may honour his commitment to pay the balance amount even at least in installments.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Government Pleader we dispose of the writ petition. We record the submission of the learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that respondents 4 and 5 will not seize the vehicle forcibly and approach the legal forum for claiming any amount due from the petitioner. We direct that in case there is any attempt by respondents 4 and 5 to seize the vehicle in question from the petitioner by force, respondents 2 and 3 will afford protection to the petitioner as against the same. We leave it open to respondents 4 and 5 to approach appropriate forum. As a condition we direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.72,000/- (Seventy two thousand) which is the amount according to the petitioner, due from him, in three equal monthly installments. The Ist instalment shall be paid on or before 31st August, 2010 and the further installments shall be payable on the last working day of the succeeding months.