IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7784 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AVIJIT J.PILLAI AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, THOLOOR HOUSE, VALANCHUZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD HAVIND ADMN.OFFICE, MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX.4, LADY DESIAKA ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, COLLEGE ROAD & JUNCTION PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.7784 OF 2010 W PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES. EXT.P2 TRUECOPY OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 7784 OF 2010 W --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the first respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner's vehicles from forceful repossession by the second respondent or his men. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the registered owner in possession of two Buses which were hypothecated with the second respondent. Petitioner had given blank cheques. According to petitioner, he was ready to foreclose both the loans. But, the second respondent is not ready to give back the documents and there was default in the payment. It is stated that the second respondent approached the first respondent and the petitioner was called to the office of the first respondent. The first respondent directed the petitioner to hand over the vehicle WPC.7784/10 W 2 which the petitioner refused. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. There is no appearance for the second respondent, though served. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the circumstances as brought out, by directing the first respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner from forcibly repossessing the vehicles in question by the second respondent or his men. It is made clear, however, that should there be an order from a competent Body directing possession to be given or repossession is permitted by such Body, the first respondent may have to give effect to such order. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge