IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14524 of 2009 Between: M.Mahaboob Basha S/o.M.Basheer Ahmed Lorry Owner H.No.10-41 A-1 Osmania College Road Kurnool Town and District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Branch Manager M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd II Floor S.V Complex R.S Road,Kurnool Town and District 2 The Regional Transport Officer Kurnool .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent NO 1 in illegally seizing the lorry bearing registration No AP 21W-2439 belonging to the petitioner without following the due procedure of law for recovery of meager loan amount from the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent No 1 to release the above said lorry immediately and hand over the same to the petitioner and grant other relief Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MD.SHARFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner purchased a lorry bearing registration No. AP 29 W 2439 after obtaining finance from M/s Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Kurnool whose branch Manager is impleaded as the 1st respondent herein. Under the terms of the agreement between the petitioner and the Finance Company, equated monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 17,570/- are payable commencing from 5.5.2007. It would appear that the petitoner defaulted in payment of some of the EMIs. While the lorry was transporting iron ore from Chandrapur to Bellari, the 1st respondent seized the lorry near Bellari, Karnataka State, is the pleading. The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in illegally seizing the lorry near Bellari in Karnataka State, without following the due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition is misconceived for two reasons. Firstly, the cause of action is said to have occurred near Bellari and it is not pleaded anywhere in the writ petition that the seizure took place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore no proceedings could be maintained in any judicial forum in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of an extra territorial cause of action. Secondly, this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is misconceived since no conduct or action of the State or an Instrumentality of the State is involved. The 1st respondent is the Branch Manager of the Finance Company from which the petitioner obtained finance for the purchase of his lorry. The Finance Company is not a party to these proceedings. Merely the Branch Manager of the Finance Company is impleaded as the 1st respondent. In any event, neither the 1st respondent nor the Finance Company answers the description of being the State or an Instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constituion, no State action is thus involved warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent-the RTO, Kurnool owes an obligation to ensure that the petitioner’s lorry is not seized by the 1st respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is however unable to show any provision of law which enjoins the 2nd respondent to be a guardian of the petitioner’s lorry. It is not as though the 2nd respondent had authorized or ordered the 1st respondent to seize the lorry. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 21.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 14524 of 2009. Dated: 21.7.2009.