IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22069 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESAN, S/O. PUSHKARA PANIKKAR, AGED 43 YEARS, GOKULAM, PACHAKKADU, VENGODE, VATTAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001. 2. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DY.S.P. OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P. OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 4. RAFI, S/O. DEVAKANNU, VIBIN NIVAS, ELAMPLACHERIYIL, KADAVATTARAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 121. 5. V.JAYAKUMAR, THONI KONAM, MURIYANKARA, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 124. 6. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.OFFICE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 124. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 22069 OF 2010 G --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 not to harass the petitioner and not to interfere with disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to see that the petitioner will not be harassed by the respondent No.2.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner purchased a Bus from the fourth respondent, who was the financier. Fifth respondent is the RC owner. There were arrears due from the fifth respondent and the vehicle was WPC.22069/2010 G 2 re-possessed and sold to the petitioner. Petitioner has to pay Rs.1,10,000/= of which he paid Rs.60,000/=. Rs.50,000/= remained to be paid within ten days from the date of the agreement and at that time, the fourth respondent was to issue the original RC Book and Clearance Certificate to the petitioner. But, this was violated and the fourth respondent had not issued the documents. Since the petitioner has not paid the balance amount, the fourth respondent re-possessed the vehicle. There is reference to proceedings of the Regional Transport Officer demanding arrears of tax. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 joined together and the fourth respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 approached the second respondent Police Officer who called the petitioner to the police station on several occasions, compelling him to agree to the illegal demands. It is stated that he has physically manhandled by the second respondent and threatened that he will be charged with criminal cases. WPC.22069/2010 G 3 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, apart from the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the vehicle, what the petitioner has stated is otherwise correct. He would submit that the second respondent will not interfere in the matter, unless there is a lawful order from the Motor Vehicles Authority for realisation of tax in which case the second respondent may have to give assistance as per law. Apart from that, there will be no harassment. We record the said submissions and close the Writ Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge