Vanamala Subba Laxmi vs The Motor and General Finance Limited and Others

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.—The relief prayed for in the petition for a writ of mandamus is mis-conceived, because the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature arising out of a hire-purchase agreement entered into between P. Kanaka Ratnam and respondents 1 and 2, of which the first respondent is the Head Office and the second respondent is the Branch Office at Vijayawada, in respect of lorry bearing No. A.P.37.T.6449. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased the said lorry under a sale letter dt.10-5-90 from Kanaka Ratnam. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle met with an accident on 16-11-92, a panchanama was drafted on 19-11-92, a petty case No. 109/92 was registered against the driver and the offence was compounded.

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents is taking the vehicle on 17-2-93 alleging that it was done so forcibly at the intervention of the Station House Officer, Bhavanipuram Police Station who is arrayed as the third respondent in the writ petition. This fact is denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and it is submitted that the vehicle was seized on 17-2-93 and brought to Vijayawada without any involvement of the third respondent. It is asserted that the third respondent never seized the vehicle, but, on the other hand, the petitioner used her influence and has taken possession of the vehicle with assistance of the local Police even without offering any security as directed by this Court. According to the petitioner the amount payable under the hire-purchase agreement is Rs. 1,60,000/-, whereas according to respondents 1 and 2 the amount due is Rs. 2,75,000/-. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a number of decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, and argued that writs can be issued against a public authority constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfiling the public purposes. But, in the same decision their Lordships also held that if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus can issue. It is not possible in a writ petition to decide whether the purchase in favour of the petitioner which is said to the contrary to the hire-purchase agreement is valid. It is urged in the counter-affidavit that on an application dt. 23-4-93 filed by respondents 1 and 2, the Regional Transport Authority has given notice to the registered owner and transferred the vehicle in favour of the first respondent on 18-5-1993.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he is questioning the unauthorised act of the third respondent, who has seized the vehicle on 17-2-93 at the instance of respondents 1 and 2, in the writ petition. But, this fact is denied in the counter-affidavit by pleading that the vehicle was seized on 17-2-93 and brought to Vijayawada without any involvement of the third respondent and that the third respondent never seized the vehicle.

The Supreme Court in a very recent decision held in Mohan Pandey and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Others, that a dispute between two private persons is not maintainable and that the remedy for such matter is civil suit or under the Criminal Procedure Code against alleged criminal complaints. The learned Judges observed that by merely making an allegation that some complaint was made to the Police and action was taken by the Police thereon, the parties are not entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court. It is only a civil suit that is an appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is established. I, therefore, hold that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Inasmuch as the petitioner has obtained possession of the lorry by virtue of the interim direction of this Court dt.19-5-93, the petitioner is under an obligation to surrender the vehicle to the second respondent within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. No costs.