IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8258 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHOSH C.V., 7/581, CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, MARADU P.O., KUNDANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM-680665 2. M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (FORMERLY CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCES LIMITED, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682025. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.8258 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: "i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to seize the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 39/3015 from the custody of the 2nd respondent and produce the same before any criminal court by preparing proper seizure mahazar; ii) issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to settle the loan account of the petitioner by providing maximum possible concession and deductions and give custody of the vehicle and other accessories to the petitioner in good condition without any delay" 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has been seized by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent without complying with the provisions of law and hence seeks a direction to be given to the 1st respondent to take custody of the vehicle from the 2nd respondent and to have it produced before the concerned Magistrate's Court for further steps. W.P (C) No. 8258 of 2011 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The petitioner is having effective alternate remedy before the competent Civil Court/Criminal Court, if at all he is aggrieved of any of the alleged questionable conduct on the part of the 1st respondent. This Court does not find it fit to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, available to him, in accordance with law. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge