IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4284 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MILLY JOLLY, W/O.JOLLY, AGED 46 YEARS, PARAKKA HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM, P.O.KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANACE CO.LTD. FIRST M.K.TOWERS, NEAR LIC OFFICE, ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. PIN- 683 572 R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.4284 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to stop all activities of the 3rd respondent within the State of Kerala in view of the absence of licence issued under the KML Act. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action including imposing of penalty against 3rd respondent for their unlawful actions and for the issuance of unauthorized and excessive demands made in Ext.P4. iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writs directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps including repossession of the vehicle without furnishing account statement relating to the loan transaction and giving an opportunity to clear the overdue amounts. v) Declare that the respondent is not entitled to charge interest or any other charges on any type of heads other than the agreed rate of interest to the above loan transaction." W.P (C) No. 4284 of 2011 2 2. It is specifically conceded in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that a vehicle loan was availed by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent in July 2007 for the purchase of a 'new bus' by executing a hire purchase agreement. Quite contrary to this, a contention has been raised in Ground C of the writ petition, that it cannot be termed as a hire-purchase (but a 'vehicle loan') placing the reliance on the decision reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs, Muthoot Leasing Finance Ltd [2008 (3) KLT 340]. The circumstances dealt with in the said case stands on a different footing. As the present case is with respect to the purchase of a 'new bus' admittedly by virtue of execution of a hire purchase agreement, this admitted fact does not require to be proved ( more so, in view of the mandate under Section 58 of the Evidence Act). Petitioner after executing the hire purchase agreement and availing the benefits, has not chosen to honour the commitment, but for challenging the steps that are being taken by the 2nd respondent, stating that the 3rd respondent has not obtained the license under the KML Act, 1958. This Court W.P (C) No. 4284 of 2011 3 does not find it fit or proper to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANCDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 4284 of 2011 4