ANIRUDHA SAHOO Vs. COMMISSIONER, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has made prayers to quash the letter dated 3.5.2009 under Annexure -4 issued by opposite party no.3, Branch Manager, Magma Shrachi Finance Limited to repossess the truck bearing No.OR -21A -1315 and to direct opposite party no.3 to hand over the said trick in the same condition in which it was seized or, in the alternative, to extend the benefit by way of compensation and damage urging several facts and raising certain legal contentions.

(2.) PETITIONER availed finance from opposite party no.3, the financer, to purchase a truck. Registration Certificate under Annexure -1 in respect of the truck in favour of petitioner subject to higher purchase agreement with opposite party no.3 was issued by opposite party no. 2, the Regional Transport Officer, Jagatsinghpur. It is averred that the petitioner, as per the details provided in Paragraph -6 of the writ application, repaid the dues amounting to a sum of Rs.11,06,096/ - in 36 installments by the end of 31.3.2009. However, opposite party no.3 made further demand and issued demand notice dated 5.3.2009 under Annexure threatening to institute civil and criminal actions against the petitioner.Ultimately, opposite party no.3 with the help of 'Gundas forcibly repossessed the truck loaded with iron and issued repossession letter under Annexure -4. When the petitioner applied for statement of accounts, opposite party no.3 issued the same under Annexure -5 which reveals that the petitioner has already paid Rs.11,06,096/ - out of the total demand of Rs.12,51,096/ -. According to opposite party no.3, balance outstanding dues amounted to Rs.1,45,000/ -. It is contended that balance default does against the petitioner was only Rs.83,000/ - by the date of repossession. However,opposite party no.3 claimed higher demand and threatened to put the seized truck to sale. Such action of opposite party no.3 is arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner was required to repay the dues in Equal Monthly Installments (EMI) by 1.12.2009. Petitioner came to know from reliable source that opposite party no.3 has already sold the vehicle and obtained permission for fresh registration of the vehicle from opposite party no.2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no.3 is liable to pay compensation for having repossessed the truck forcibly and illegally by engaging 'Gundas.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , opposite party no.3 represents a private company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in the business of providing finance. Consequent upon a bilateral agreement entered into between the petitioner and opposite party no.3, petitioner availed loan for purchasing the truck. Dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no.3 relates to default in re -payment of loan by way of E.M.Is. None of the prayers made in the writ petition is directed against any statutory authority. The rival contentions made by the parties relate to civil dispute concerning breach of commercial contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the decision in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. -vrs - Prakash Kaur and Ors, AIR 2007 (SC) 1349 to urge that writ application is maintainable in cases of present nature. However, decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered by Honble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2007 arising out of order passed by Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition directing SSP, Allahabad to ensure registration of F.I.R. and investigation on the basis of application submitted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the decision is of no help to the petitioner.