IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1130 of 2011(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VINOD KUAMR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.K.C.BABU, KOMBARA, NAD ALUVA BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALUVA-683 101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA - 683 010. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5. MR.AJITH,RECOVERING AGENT, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA, CHEMPUMUKKU - 682 021. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1130 of 2011-M ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner against the culpable, contumacious and violent acts of the 5th respondent allegedly a recovery agent of a financier who is trying to seize the petitioner's vehicle and who in the course of such attempt, the petitioner apprehends, is likely to indulge in objectionable conduct. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the amounts due to the financier. If the petitioner is W.P.(C) No.1130 of 2011 -: 2 :- willing to deposit the amount to the financier, there can possibly be no question of the financier exercising his right of seizure. The dispute thus is a purely civil dispute about the right of seizure of the financier of the vehicle of the petitioner in respect of which a hire purchase agreement allegedly is available. As to whether the financier has a right of seizure or not cannot obviously be decided by this Court invoking and exercising its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution. The petitioner must go to the civil court and get the dispute regarding the right of seizure resolved. We are not persuaded to issue any direction under Art.226 of the Constitution at this juncture in favour of the petitioner who has not chosen to go to the civil court to get that dispute resolved. 3. The petitioner apprehends that the financier and the recovery agent may go beyond the course available to them under law and may indulge in violent acts and intimidation. The learned Government Pleader readily accepts that if there is any allegation of such improper, contumacious and culpable conduct, the police shall step in and take necessary action. On that aspect also we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on that aspect. W.P.(C) No.1130 of 2011 -: 3 :- 4. This writ petition is , in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge