IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34865 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU.M.C, S/O. CYRIL, PANDYALACKAL HOUSE, THUMBOLI.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH, POLLICE STATION. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SKYLINE CITADEL, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-4. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34865/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the third respondent Bank for purchasing a vehicle. According to the petitioner, there is a hypothecation agreement. Admittedly, there is default in the re-payment of the loan. Petitioner submits that agents at the instigation of the third respondent have been threatening him of re-possession of the vehicle. Petitioner has filed Ext.P6 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police and he has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- (a). A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to prevent 3rd respondent and his men from forcefully re-possession of petitioner's vehicle bearing No.KL.7Y. 7999, Toyota Qualis (b). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or W.P.(C).34865/2008 2 direction directing respondent No.1 and 2 to consider and take action on Ext.P6 forthwith. 2. In my view, petitioner does not have a cause of action at this stage. If the third respondent re-possesses the vehicle, otherwise than in accordance with law, obviously petitioner would have a cause of action at that stage. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakashkaur and Others (2007 (2) SCC 711) and by this Court in Shibi Francis v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 923) and Bhahuleyan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 402), no doubt reiterates the view that re-possession of vehicle by a financier shall not be effected, by using musclemen or by hiring recovery agents in derogation of the due process. At this stage, I do not find any reason why such a direction should be issued to the third respondent. Obviously, the law laid down by the Supreme court is binding on all persons concerned including the petitioner and the third respondent. W.P.(C).34865/2008 3 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to look into Ext.P6 and take appropriate action thereon and register a crime if it discloses any cognizance offence and then proceed further as contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs