IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26110 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- REGHUNATHAN, S/O KUTTAPPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, REVEENDRA VILASAM, THENMALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 2. TATA MOTERS FINANCE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, LEKSHMI BUILDING TC NO. 26/429, VANCROSS ROAD 695 001, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26110 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a lorry with the help of finance from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had been regularly paying the monthly instalments. However, due to the fact that the lorry broke down for a few months, he could not pay the monthly instalments. Again he started paying monthly instalments, but there is some arrears. In the meantime, the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent is pressurising the petitioner to pay amounts under threat of seizure of the vehicle. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 1 st respondent not to take possession of the vehicle No.KL02/T8732 of the petitioner on behalf of the 2 nd respondent. ii. to declare that the 1 st respondent has no authority to take possession of the petitioner's vehicle or to insist the petitioner to pay any amount to the 2 nd respondent”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P.(c)No.26110/08 2 3. I am satisfied that the 1st respondent cannot use such measure for settling civil disputes between private parties. This is a clear case of civil dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. That being so, the 1st respondent has no power to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent not to interfere with the civil disputes, in respect of the lorry in question, between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent unless it is in respect of a criminal case. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26110/08 3