PRINSU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact of the case is more or less indisputable. The writ petitioner purchased a harvesting machine under Hire Purchase Agreement executed by and between the writ petitioner and the Respondent no. 6, who is a Non-Banking Financial Corporation. The agreement was executed on 15/11/2019, by virtue of which the finance company agreed to pay loan of Rs.24,80,000.00(Twenty four lakhs and eighty thousand only) for purchasing the said harvesting machine. The petitioner made initial payment of Rs.8,00,000.00 (Eight lakhs only) towards the sale price of the said harvesting machine. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after purchase of the said machine, there was upsurge of COVID 19 pandemic. During the COVID 19 pandemic, all works and functions including the agricultural work was closed during the period between 1/1/2020 and 19/7/2022. Along with others, agricultural sector was also affected adversely and the petitioner could not make use of the harvesting machine for the purpose of agriculture to augment income. As a result, he was not regular in payment of monthly installments. However, the petitioner paid Rs.7,00,000.00 (Seven lakhs only) approximately during the said period. It is alleged by the petitioner that without issuing any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to make payment of the outstanding dues and also without any notice of repossession, the private respondents with the help of the police personnel attached to the local police station illegally entered into the premises of the petitioner on 1/12/2022, and took over forcible possession of the vehicle. It is contended by the petitioner that by such illegal act and omission to perform the preconditions of the loan agreement, forcible possession of harvesting machine caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. As an agriculturist, agriculture is the only source of sustenance of the petitioner. By illegal possession of the harvesting machine, the respondents with the help of the police authority have infringed the basic human and fundamental right of life of the petitioner. By such act of the private respondents, the petitioner's right to live with dignity and honor have been infringed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for a direction by issuance of appropriate writ upon the respondents no. 01-04 to restore the possession of the vehicle, i.e., New Holland TC 5.30 Combine Harvester unto him and other incidental reliefs.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset that generally a Hire Purchase Agreement between two persons is essentially contractual in nature. Until and unless, it is shown that the Hire Purchase Agreement itself is unconscionable or opposed to public policy. The action of the lender cannot be subject to interference in writ petition. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 598 is the law relating to contractual nature of Hire Purchase Agreement which still holds good on the field.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 1.