ANIL KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notices dated 24 -1 -2006 and 25 -1 -2006, issued by the respondent No. 2, for recovery of amount and for auction of the vehicle owned by the petitioner and further to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and pay the damages caused by illegal seizure.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 for financing the vehicle on hire purchase agreement, and for that purpose a loan Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lacs only) was sanctioned by the respondent No. 2 and hire purchase agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein a monthly instalment of Rs. 16,253.00 (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred fifty three only) was to be paid by the petitioner for 35 months as per the schedule of repayment for the purchase of the vehicle bearing No. U.P. 86 -9981. Out of said 36 instalments, petitioner paid 22 instalments; the total amount of Rs. 3,56,456/ - (Rupees three lakh fifty six thousand four hundred fifty six only). However, as the subsequent instalments could not be paid, the respondent No. 2 recovered the possession of the vehicle. It is alleged that at the time of the seizure of the vehicle, it was carrying the goods owing to the 3rd party which had also been taken in possession by the said respondent No. 2. Thus, this writ petition has been filed for issuing direction for criminal prosecution of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 392 IPC, and for further direction to release the vehicle and not to charge the interest at exorbitant rate.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the ICICI Bank Ltd., contending that the said Bank is not a nationalised Bank. Merely impleading the State as a respondent would not make the petition maintainable. More so, the respondent No. 3 has been impleaded without giving its name and even the copy of the higher purchase agreement has not been filed. Petitioner has not given the correct facts. The impugned notices provide that in case the petitioner fails to make the re -payment of the outstanding dues, there shall be recovery of penalty at the rate of Rs. 60.12 per day and it is not the rate of interest with which the respondents want to make the recovery. More so, it is settled legal proposition that under the higher purchase agreement the financial institution remains the owner, and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and also lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.