CWP No. 1978 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1978 of 2011 Date of decision: September 5,2011 Charanjit Singh son of Santa Singh ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners relief in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who had advanced a loan to the petitioner are seeking for forcible recoveries and after collecting a portion of the amount due, they compelled the petitioner to change the registration of the vehicle in the name of the fifth respondent but they are still proceeding for recoveries only from the petitioner. The petitioner has also impleaded State Functionaries to give it a colour of State interest to maintain the writ petition. I find no reason for making any interference in the writ petition which is a contractual obligation between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. CWP No. 1978 of 2011 2 2. Learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Kanwar Nonihaul Singh Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 10869 of 2007 where an interim order was passed restoring back the possession of the vehicle while making reliance on the judgment of ICICI Bank Vs. Prakash Kaur and others JT 2007 (4) SC 39. Learned counsel also refers to the final decision that was passed in the same case and also refers to a judgment in Narinder Kumar Singla Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 890 to hold that since possession had been taken back therefore, the writ petition had itself become infructuous. I cannot understand as to how these cases could have a bearing to this case. The petition states that 'No Objection Certificate' had been obtained for transfer of ownership in the name of the sixth respondent and that respondent No. 4 and 5 were trying to make forcible recovery by coercive action against the petitioner against the mandate of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court. If according to the petitioner, he had transferred the ownership of the vehicle to the sixth respondent, then recovery by seizing the vehicle or enforcing the security ought not to be a matter of concern for the petitioner. If the petitioner's argument is that the transfer of ownership itself was secured by any force or fraud that it would be purely factual, it could be tested in a properly instituted civil action and not in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 5 , 2011 archana