IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10689 of 2009 Between: K.Venkata Rama Rao, S/o Ananda Rao, R/o. 11-155, Penamaluru Centre, M.G.Road, Vijaywada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep by its Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2 Sundaram Finance Ltd., 21, Patullos Road, Chennai-600 002 Rep by its Managing Director. 3 Sundaram Finance Ltd, D.No.40-1-126, 1st Floor, Vasantha Plaza, M.G.Road, Chandramoulipuram, Vijaywada, Rep by its Branch Manager. ...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 any writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in seizing the Petitioners vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TW 2538 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for consequential directions to the respondents to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TW 2538 and also not to resort to any illegal methods for recovery of the said amounts and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10689 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in seizing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TW 2538 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to release the said vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the both parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner entered into Loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement with the 2nd respondent on 30.05.2006 for purchase of the vehicle in question. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner committed default in payment of the installments payable under the hypothecation agreement. Consequently the vehicle in question which was hypothecated to the 2nd respondent was seized on 27.05.2009. The said action is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia the impugned action of the respondents in taking possession of the vehicle without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner committed default in payment of the monthly installments, I am enable to hold that the impugned action of the respondents in taking possession of the vehicle in question is arbitrary and illegal. Hence the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to repay whatever the amounts due to the respondents under hypothecation agreement and on receipt of such amounts the 2nd respondent shall release the vehicle in question. No costs. __________________ G.ROHINI. J 10th June, 2009. Yvl/gbs