IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17986 of 2007 Between: Mr.D.John samuel 78,Kalyan garden, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad-94 ..... PETITIONER AND Citi Financial, 9-10, Uma Chambers Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to the respondent for compliance of any COMPROMISE FORMULA as per respondents option as stated in para 6,A,B,C,D. Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent: MR P.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17986 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri D.John Samuel complaining that the Citi Financial Company, who is the respondent herein, has violated the Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner borrowed money from the respondent to purchase a Maruthi car. He agreed to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,22,000/- @ Rs.9,143/- per month. He also hypothecated the car with the respondent Company. Due to defaults committed by him in payment of the instalments, the respondent took possession of the hypothecated vehicle. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent seized the vehicle without giving him suﬃcient opportunity to repay the money. 4. Heard party-in-person. 5. The petitioner contends that he has been eking out his livelihood, by hiring the vehicle, and when he failed to pay the monthly instalments for the months of April and May, 2004, the respondent, instead of giving him some time to pay the instalment amounts, proceeded to seize the vehicle and, therefore, the action of the respondent amounts to violation of the Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The averments of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition indicate that the petitioner borrowed money from the respondent Company to purchase a car and he agreed to repay the loan amount @ Rs.9,143/- per month. Indisputably, the petitioner failed to pay the instalments and thereupon the respondent Company, exercising its right, seized the vehicle. 7. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is purely a private one and there is no public law element involved in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J) 31st July, 2008 v v