IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37700 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SALIM A, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, ENCHAKKAL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.206, MAHATMA NAGAR, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM 691 010. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, HDFC BANK, REGD OFFICE, HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI 400 013,. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM. 3. THE MANAGER,HDFC BANK LTD., KENTON TOWERS, ADJ KALABHAVAN THEATRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANNGTAURAM 695 014. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 5. THE R.T.O. KOLLAM, OFFICE OF R.T.O., CIVIL STATION KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No. 37700 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in seizing a vehicle hypothecated to them by the petitioner, which was purchased by the petitioner with financial assistance from respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner now seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents and declare that the seizure and sale of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL02Z9925 belonging to the petitioner is null and void. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 to 3 to restructure/reschedule the credit facility of the petitioner.” Respondents 1 to 3 are not entities against which this court can issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the purpose of making the writ petition maintainable, the 4th respondent has been impleaded, with a vague averment that it was with the help of the 4th respondent that the vehicle has been seized. But in the writ petition it is candidly admitted that the vehicle was seized by an advocate on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, who has not been impleaded in this W.P(C)No. 37700 of 2008 - 2 - writ petition. That being so, on the basis of such vague averments against the 4th respondent, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. I am of opinion that the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit against respondents 1 to 3 for the reliefs now sought by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to such right of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs