IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1655 of 2011(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- BHASKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, PONNALLI HOUSE, GANESHGIRI.P.O, SHORNUR VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, M/S.SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED AT KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER-680503. 2. SUNIL, ROOT MANAGER, M/S.SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED AT KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503. 3. ABI, MANAGER, M/S.SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED AT KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-679121. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-679121. R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 1676/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) Nos.1655 & 1676 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. In these petitions filed through the same counsel, identical relief is claimed by the petitioners concerned. They pray that police protection may be afforded to them to ensure that respondents 1 to 3 do not resort to highhanded illegal and criminal acts while exercising their right of seizure under agreements which the petitioners have admittedly entered with respondents 1 and 2. 2. The identical fact in these two cases are that the petitioners have availed amounts from the 1st respondent Sriram Transport Finance Limited, Kunnamkulam. The vehicles have been entrusted to the petitioners concerned. They are using the vehicles under the agreements. In the event of default, the 1st respondent has a right of seizure. According to the petitioners, there has been no default. But it is admitted that some of the instalments have been paid to the recovery agents/representatives of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent does not now accept that such payments have been made. Consequently the 1st respondent is about to exercise the right of W.P(C) Nos.1655 & 1676 of 2011 2 seizure under the agreements concerned. The prayer is not to prevent them from exercising their right of seizure, but only to afford protection so that they do not resort to highhanded illegal and criminal acts while exercising such right of seizure. 3. We were not prima facie satisfied. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain his stand. According to the counsel, the petitioners have not gone to the civil court so far. They have not invoked the right, which is said to be available, to resort to arbitration under those agreements. No orders under Section 9 are sought. The short prayer is that the exercise of the right of seizure by resort to illegal methods/violent acts may be prevented and for that police protection may be afforded. 4. We do not find merit in the prayer made in these petitions. We will not lightly assume that respondents 1 and 2 shall resort, not to legal methods of seizure, but only illegal and violent methods of seizure. An order for grant of police protection need not be given assuming that the legal right of seizure will be interfered by resort to illegal and violent measures. On the main and crucial question about the right of seizure, the petitioners who have the option to initiate legal W.P(C) Nos.1655 & 1676 of 2011 3 proceedings to prevent such seizure, have not chosen to initiate any steps. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution to arm the petitioners with any order of police protection without and before resolution of the basic controversy as to whether there is any such scope for exercise of such civil right. Needless to say, if there be any illegal violent and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in the exercise of the right of seizure admittedly available to them under the contracts with the petitioners, the petitioners shall be at liberty to complain to the police and necessary action ought to be taken by the police if there is resort to culpable conduct in the exercise of the lawful right of seizure. 6. These Writ Petitions are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/