IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26710 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 39 YEARS, PRAVEEN BHAVANAM, THENMALA WEST, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 3. 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 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26710 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a vehicle with financial assistance from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that due to the circumstances beyond his control, he could not pay some of the instalments. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has resumed payment of the instalments. But it would take some time to regularise the same. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in the meantime, the 2nd respondent is forcing the petitioner to pay the amounts to the 3rd respondent, for which, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no powers under law. 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 and 2 nd respondents not to take possession of the vehicle No.KL-25-526 of the petitioner on behalf of the 3 rd respondent. ii. to declare that the 1 st and 2 nd respondents have not authority to take possession of the petitioner's vehicle or to insist the petitioner to pay any amount to the 3 rd respondent”. W.P.(c)No.26710/08 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. If the situation is as averred by the petitioner certainly the 2nd respondent cannot interfere in the matter since it is purely a civil dispute. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent not to interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, unless it is in respect of a criminal case pending or it is pursuant to some orders from some competent Court. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26710/08 3