Sajikumar vs State Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 18546 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 8123 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              SAJIKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOHNSON,
              SAJI BHAVAN, KODINJAMOOLA MULLILAVILA,
              KUDAYAL PO, KUNNATHUKAL,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506.

              BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

     2        THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505.

     3        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLARADA POLICE STATION,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695505.

     4        THE BRANCH MANAGER,MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL
              SERVICE LTD., 1ST FLOOR, ASIFF COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.

              BY ADV SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

                     SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 8123/21
                                            2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

conceding that he has availed of certain

financial facilities from 'Mahindra and Mahindra

Financial Service Ltd', - of which the 4 th

respondent is the Manager - for purchasing a

Goods Autorikshaw, bearing registration No.KL-19

K-7696.

2. The petitioner asserts that he had been

paying the instalments due until March/April

2020; but that on account of the COVID-19

pandemic scenario, he was unable to pay a few. He

then alleges that even though he is willing to

pay off the entire loan liability to the

Financial Institution as per the terms of the

loan sanction, they are attempting to use force,

engaging hired men, to repossess the vehicle; and

therefore, that he was constrained to approach

the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, through WPC 8123/21

Ext.P2, seeking Police protection. He says that

since no action has been taken by the 3 rd

respondent on Ext.P2, he was forced to approach

this Court.

3. I have heard Sri.Yadu Krishnan - learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh -

learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

the official respondents.

4. Even though summons from this Court has

been validly served on the 4th respondent, they

have chosen not to be present in person or to be

represented through counsel; thus inferentially

guiding me to the impression that they have no

opposition to the reliefs sought for by the

petitioner in this Writ Petition.

5. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that, contrary to the

allegations of the petitioner, there have been no

untoward incidents with respect to the vehicle in

question and that no complaints have been WPC 8123/21

received subsequent to Ext.P2, with respect to

any action being taken by the 4th respondent. He

then submitted that, as and when the petitioner

makes any such complaint, necessary action will

be taken in terms of law.

6. I notice that the petitioner expressly

admits that he has availed of a financial

facility from the 4th respondent and that he has

defaulted a few of the instalments thereunder.

Obviously, therefore, if the terms of the

contract between the parties allow repossession

of the vehicle, then certainly, the 4 th respondent

can do so following due procedure. However, they

cannot take law into their hands or use extra-

legal methods for such purpose and I am certain

that if any such is used, then it is the duty of

the 3rd respondent to intervene and ensure that it

is avoided.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition,

recording the afore submissions of the learned WPC 8123/21

Government Pleader and leaving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent with any

complaint with respect to any illegal action on

the part of the 4th respondent; in which event,

necessary steps will be taken as per law swiftly

and quickly.

Sd/-

RR                                   DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                          JUDGE
 WPC 8123/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8123/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF

REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.3.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.