IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24220 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD GEETHA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR. K.P.AJI BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUNDAKAYAM 2. MR.K.A. JAMES, S/O. K.A.ABRAHAM KANNUVETTIYIL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24220 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that he being the financier of vehicle KL-5/S-3839, the 2nd respondent registered owner had surrendered the vehicle to them. According to them, at a later stage, the 1st respondent had instructed them to produce the vehicle before them and on its production vehicle was detained by the 1st respondent. Despite request, the vehicle was not released and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition, praying for orders directing its release. 2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that though the vehicle was initially reported to be missing, it was later found out and that there were some disputes involving the vehicle which were also understood to have been discussed between the rival claimants. 3. It is stated that the 1st respondent had not directed for the production of the vehicle and that the vehicle is also not in the custody of the 1st respondent and is not involved in any case. WPC 24220/08 :2 : However, it is admitted that the vehicle is still parked outside the police station and the 1st respondent submits that it is open to the petitioner to take the vehicle if they are so entitled. 4. In view of the above submissions, the direction sought for by the writ petitioner is unnecessary and it is clarified that if the petitioner is so entitled, the petitioner is free to take the possession of the vehicle referred to above, from where it is now available. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp