IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30483 of 2011(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- ANEESH GOPINATHAN, S/O.GOPINATHAN, AGED 28, MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, ALAPRA P.O., KOCHUCHELACHUVADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.-695001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKKUZHI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685553. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKKUZHI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685553. 4. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE CO.LTD, IST FLOOR, ELAYEDATHU BUILDINGS, KALARKUTTY ROAD, ADIMALI, PIN - 685551, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30483 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-38-8625 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE VEHICLE VALID FROM 03/04/10 TO 02/04/15. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF the STATEMENT SHOWING THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06/10/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.30483 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who possesses and operates Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-38-8625, a taxi in the route Kanjikkuzhy - Adimaly in Idukki District complains that the 4th respondent with whom there is a subsisting Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of the Jeep is threatening to forcibly re-posses the Jeep alleging that the Hire Purchasing Agreement has been defaulted. On receipt of notice from this Court the 4th respondent enters appearance before this Court and we directed the learned counsel for the 4th respondent to facilitate the filing of a statement or an affidavit giving details as to the amounts due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent. Power of Attorney Holder of W. P. C. No.30483 of 2011 -2- the 4th respondent, company has accordingly filed a counter affidavit. A reading of paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit will show that the total value of the instalments which have been defaulted by the petitioner comes to ` 92,840/- and that in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement a sum of ` 21,702/- is payable on the above total value towards additional finance charges. Thus as on date, for regularising the transaction the petitioner will have to pay a sum of ` 1,14,542/-. When we enquired of Sri.S.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel for the petitioner as to when sum of ` 1,14,542/- which is apparently necessary to be paid for regularising the transaction can be paid by the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that on account of present financial constraints the petitioner will be able to remit only ` 30,000/- immediately. 2. Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned senior Government W. P. C. No.30483 of 2011 -3- Pleader submitted that the Jeep in question is operating within the limits of as many as three police stations and the only officers relating to Kanjikkuzhi Police Station have been arrayed as parties. Therefore, according to Sri.Shyamkumar even if protection directions are issued it may be possible for the 4th respondent to re-posses the Jeep by seizing the same outside the limits of Kanjikkuzhi police station. Sri.Devaprasanth, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent is not interested in re- possessing the Jeep. It is interested in recovering its dues. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the 4th respondent has to desist from all attempts to re-possess the Jeep in question provided the petitioner liquidates the debt of ` 1,14,542/- which is apparently due to the 4th respondent from the petitioner as of now. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ W. P. C. No.30483 of 2011 -4- Petition issuing the following directions:- 4. The petitioner will pay a sum of ` 50,000/- to the 4th respondent towards the amount due to the 4th respondent on or before 01/12/11 and pay a further amount of ` 40,000/- on or before 30/12/11 and the balance of ` 24,542/- on or before 15/01/12. If payments are made on the due dates as ordered above, the 4th respondent will refrain from taking any coercive action for re-possession of the Jeep in question. If the 4th respondent threatens to take coercive action including action for re-possession in spite of payments being made promptly by the petitioner as directed above, the petitioner can bring the matter to the notice of the 3rd respondent who will afford requisite protection to the continued operation of Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-38- 8625 as a taxi by the petitioner. We make it clear that the petitioner will get the benefit of the order passed above only W. P. C. No.30483 of 2011 -5- if he pays the amounts as ordered above without any default. It is needless to mention that the above direction does not mean that the petitioner is free to default payment of the regular future instalments as and when they fall due. Petitioner shall pay the regular instalments as and when the same falls due. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE