Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Adapa Durga vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd., on 26 March, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.23440 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner had purchased a Lorry bearing No.AP16TC4468 by
borrowing a sum of Rs.11,90,000/- from the 1st respondent, which is a
private financial services Ltd. The petitioner had hypothecated the vehicle
to the respondents, as security for repayment of the loan on 23.06.2019.
This loan was to be repaid by way of monthly installments. As the
petitioner defaulted in payment of two monthly installments, the
respondents had repossessed the vehicle at Cuttack, Orissa State, when
the vehicle was transporting Iron ore. The petitioner alleges that this
repossession was done without following any of the guidelines for such
seizure. The respondent issued a pre-sale notice dated 31.10.2020 calling
upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,96,541/-, failing which the
vehicle of the Petitioner would be sold.
2. The petitioner assailed the said seizure and subsequent
refusal of the respondents to release the vehicle of the Petitioner along
with the iron ore, even upon an offer of the petitioner to pay two monthly
installments, which had fallen due. It is submitted that the said seizure is
in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur and Ors.,1.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as ICICI Bank v.
Shanti Devi Sharma2, to contend that a writ petition, against a private
(2007) 2 SCC 711
2008 (3) SUPREME 683
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.23440/2020
party, would also be maintainable. In this case the issue before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a part of the judgment of the High
Court should be expunged as the High Court had passed certain
observations, which were objected to by the Appellant. This case was not
on the question of maintainability of a writ petition.
4. The petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in City Corporation Maruti Finance Ltd., v.
Vijayalakshmi3. The facts of this case also show that this judgment is
not on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.
5. It is well settled that a Writ of Mandamus is a remedy
against the inaction of the State or a wrong action of the State. This
remedy is not available against a private person. However, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, over time, had expanded the scope of the term "State" to
include the State itself and its instrumentalities and even private bodies, in
exceptional circumstances where a private body undertakes public
functions and duties, which are akin to the functions of the State and its
instrumentalities.
6. In the present case, the respondents are private parties,
which are in the business of vehicle finance and other financial services.
These activities cannot, by any stretch of imagination, being included as
public functions, which would bring these organizations within the ambit
of the term "State". In the circumstances, the writ petition is not
maintainable
AIR 2012 SC 509
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.23440/2020
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
26th March, 2021
Js
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.23440/2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.23440 of 2020
26th March, 2021
Js
