IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6642 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAGARAJAN.G, S/O.GOVINDASWAMY, 230, GANESHA COLONY, METTU STREET, ANNA NAGAR, PERUMBALUR P.O., PERUMBALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, INFOPARK, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M/S.FAROOQ CONSTRUCTIONS, FATHIMA BUILDINGS, NORTH OF VAZHICHERY BRIDGE, ALAPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 SRI.E.RAFEEK FOR R3 SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. FOR R3 SRI.P. NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: True copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing Rsg.No.TN 46E8974, dt.11.12.2007 Ext.P2: True copy of the Work Order.No.FAROOQ/TEAP-Apply 07/ dated 25.03.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of the lawyer notice dated 27.01.2009 Ext.P4: True copy of the Reply notice. /True copy/ P.A. To Judge V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 6642 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of Vibratory Road Roller bearing Reg.No.TN 46 E 8974. The vehicle was leased to the 3rd respondent for a monthly rental of Rs.1,05,000/-(the rate of rent is not accepted by the 3rd respondent). The 3rd respondent entered into an agreement with the second respondent for construction of a four line road. The 3rd respondent deployed the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, aforementioned, covered by Ext.P1 Registration Certificate also for the purpose of the same. It seems that there arose a dispute between respondents 2 and 3 regarding the execution of the work. According to the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent abandoned the work. The 3rd respondent, at the time of commencing the work, declared that he was in possession of two other vehicles. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was also brought to the site by the 3rd respondent. But when the work was stopped, the vehicle was not taken WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009 : 2 : back by the 3rd respondent or returned to the owner. According to the 3rd respondent, second respondent did not permit him to do so. 2. Petitioner sent Ext.P1 notice to the second respondent demanding release of the vehicle. This was replied vide Ext.P4, essentially pointing out the alleged breach committed by the 3rd respondent. There is also a statement in Ext.P4 to the effect that the petitioner has not produced any document before the second respondent to prove his ownership of the vehicle or the terms and conditions under which the same was entrusted to M/s.Farooq Construction. This writ petition has been filed requiring the second respondent to release the vehicle. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, asserting that the vehicle was brought to the site by the contractor and therefore they are entitled to exercise a lien over the same. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel for the 3rd WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009 : 3 : respondent. 5. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 Registration Certificate. It was taken on hire by 3rd respondent who deployed it in site, for the purpose of the work entrusted to him by the second respondent. But that will not enable the second respondent to exercise a lien over a property belonging to the petitioner with whom the second respondent has no privity of contract. I also take note of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that the 3rd respondent had declared that he has in his possession two vehicles to be used for the work in question. That did not include the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. Contractual dispute between Respondents 2 and 3 are to be resolved as per terms and conditions of their agreement. Petitioner cannot be brought within the purview of their dispute. The 2nd respondent is an instrumentality of the State it is therefore bound to act in a fair manner. 6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second WPC.No. 6642 OF 2009 : 4 : respondent to release the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 Registration certificate to the petitioner on the petitioner approaching the second respondent in this regard along with the original Registration Certificate relating to the said vehicle. Writ petition is disposed as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma