IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7627 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DEEPU K. RAJ,S/O.KAVIRAJAN, NIRMALAYAM HOUSE,THRIKKADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O.,KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DIST-691501. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, NAZEEMA COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7627 of 2011-C ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. Notice given to the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner is a contract carriage operator. He has raised a loan on the security of his vehicle from the 3rd respondent. There are disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent about payments made etc. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is now employing strong arm tactics to extract money which, according to the 3rd respondent, is due to him from the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner. 3. The dispute, evidently, is about the liability of the W.P.(C) No. 7627 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner to pay amounts to the 3rd respondent and the right of the 3rd respondent to claim recovery of the amount. Admittedly, the vehicle is in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has not surrendered the same so far. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that regarding the right of seizure, no directions under Art.226 of the Constitution can, need or deserve to be issued by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the real dispute is not about the right of seizure; but the threat posed to the petitioner from the hirelings engaged by the 3rd respondent. Sans the dispute regarding the seizure of the vehicle, we are unable to perceive any threat as alleged to the person and life of the petitioner. We are, in these circumstances, not persuaded to accept the final request made that direction may be granted for the protection of the person and life of the petitioner. We do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner and hence we are not invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We may, however, observe that if, sans the dispute regarding right of seizure of the vehicle, there is any attempt to the life or person of the petitioner for the alleged enforcement of the W.P.(C) No. 7627 of 2011 -: 3 :- monetary claim by the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 must take necessary action. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge