IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14020 of 2007 Between: P.Rajulu S/o.Kama Raju R/o.Door No.1-114, Kondevaram,U.Kothapalli Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Transport Authority, rep.by its Secretary Kakinada, East Godavari District 2 Sri Swamy Ayyappa Finance, Regd.No.166/96 Gandhi Nagar, Kakinada-4, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in not releasing the vehicle (Bajaj Aspire) bearing No. AP 05AD 3202 from the hire purchase in spite of the request made by the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to issue No Objection Certificate to the 1st respondent for the purpose of releasing the vehicle and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 1st respondent – Regional Transport Authority in not releasing the vehicle (Bajaj Aspire) of the petitioner bearing No. AP 05 AD 3202 from the hire purchase and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent – Sri Swamy Ayyappa Finance to issue No Objection Certificate to the 1st respondent for the purpose of releasing the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Transport. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject matter of vehicle under an hire purchase agreement and cleared all the dues but the 2nd respondent is not issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ to enable the 1st respondent to release the vehicle from hire purchase. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is a finance company and the petitioner purchased the vehicle under an hire purchase agreement and in this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent Finance Company, which is neither a State nor an authority, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against it is not maintainable. Further, the 1st respondent has nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. If the 2nd respondent is not issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ even after clearing the dues, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court and obtain a decree to that effect. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.21.7.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Regional Transport Authority, rep.by its Secretary Kakinada, East Godavari District 2 2CCs to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 3 2CD copies