IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 12501 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KARAPPAN, MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-3. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. 8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR. 9. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. 10. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKKEKARA, ERNAKULAM. 11. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, N.PARAVUR POLICE STATION, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM. 12. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 13. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLUR POLICE STATION, CHERANELLUR, ERNAKULAM. 14. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAPPILLY POLICE STATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. 15. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 16. M/S.SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. FIRST FLOOR, ARAFA TOWERS, VELIYANNUR ROAD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. G.P. SHRI . C.M. NAZER FOR R1 TO R15. ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR FOR R16 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHILE KL8/AE/413 DT.8.4.2005 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF IN WPC NO. 35637/08 T 19.8.2009 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNATURE DT.17.11.2009 ISSUED BY RTA ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TELEGRAM MESSAGE DT.15.2.10 ISSUED BY THE 16 RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT.12.3.10 ISSUED BY THE 16TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE POLIE COMPLAINT DT.5.4.10 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 JOINTLY. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE POLIE COMPLAINT DT.5.4.10 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 10 TO 15 JOINTLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 12501 of 2010 K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 15 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, his workers and his SC vehicle KL 8/AE 413 from the forceful repossession of the said vehicle from petitioner's custody either by the 16th respondent or by their men. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 15 to maintain law and order at the time when the 16th respondent or their men attempting to repossess the vehicle while the vehicle is on the route operation with passengers.” W.P.(C).No. 12501 of 2010 2 2. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. There are various allegations raised in the Writ Petition, which are not relevant. What is relevant is the allegation that the petitioner has entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 16th respondent. It is the complaint that the 16th respondent is attempting to forcefully take away the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the 16th respondent submits that there is no intention to re-possess the vehicle by force and they will resort to legal steps for taking possession of the vehicle. 4. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition. We direct that in case there is any attempt by the 16th respondent to illegally re-possess the vehicle of the petitioner, in respect of his hire purchase agreement with the 16th respondent, respondents 1 to 15 shall provide adequate protection to the petitioner as against such forcible and illegal re-possession by the 16th respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm