IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4532 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. RESMI HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY PVT LTD OLLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN U.P.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 60, S/O.PUSHPANGADAN, VOTTOLI, AMBALLUR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ADDL. THAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHALISSERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. JAYAN.T., S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, THATTARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KORATTIKKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.4532 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the financier of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-3N/9382. Going by the averments in this writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that on account of the default committed, hire purchase agreement has been terminated and the petitioner is entitled to take possession of the vehicle. It is stated that in the meanwhile the vehicle has been seized by the 4th respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in the unauthorized transportation of river sand. Proceedings are pending before the District Collector. 2. In the meanwhile, coming to know of the incident and on account of their case that they are entitled to repossess the vehicle, the petitioner made Ext.P7 application to the 4th respondent seeking interim custody of WP(c).No.4532/09 2 the vehicle. Petitioner has also a case that the District Collector has already passed Ext.P5 order directing release of the vehicle and that they have remitted the amount specified therein. It is stated that despite having made the payment as above and also having made Ext.P7 the vehicle has not been released. 3. Evidently, proceedings are yet to be finalized by the 2nd respondent and it is the case of the petitioner that though the 5th respondent is the registered owner, they being the financier, are entitled to take possession of the vehicle, in view of the provisions contained under the Hire Purchase agreement. 4. In view of the claim made as above, it is only appropriate that the District Collector himself shall consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in their favour. As according to the petitioner Ext.P7 application made to the 4th respondent has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent I direct the 2nd respondent to decide the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7, with notice to the petitioner WP(c).No.4532/09 3 and also to the 5th respondent. 5. This the District Collector shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/