Judgment :- Thanikkachalam, Actg. Chief Justice: This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P. No. 2783 of 1997. The writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records, relating to the notice dated 19-11-1996 on the file of the second respondent in Ref. No. TRIC/CUD/LAAIV/96-97 and quash the same and for directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to release the petitioners lorry TN 31-9293, on deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. 2. From the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation and also through Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravidar Housing Development Corporation, the appellant herein obtained a lorry by Loan and hypothecated the same for Rs. 3,70,000/-. The abovesaid sum is payable in 56 of monthly instalments of Rs. 1,520/- each, as per the repayment schedule for TANDCO margin money. The appellant failed to pay the instalment. As per the hypothecation executed, a sum of Rs. 3,00,852/- is due towards principal and a sum of Rs. 2,20,050.30 is due towards interest up to 31-10-1996. For the amount due, the vehicle was seized by the respondents. The appellant herein came forward with the writ petition seeking direction from this court to release the vehicle on payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, since the lorry is the source for the livelihood of the appellant. According to the appellant, he has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,95,998/- towards the loan amount. It is also represented that the damages awarded, amounting to Rs. 17,148/- was also adjusted towards the loan amount and the total comes to Rs. 2,12,146/-. According to the appellant the loan amount was paid in instalments and on account of that he was saddled with the liability of paying interest not only on the principal, but also interest on interest. Since there is outstanding amount towards the loan, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 19-11-1996 and seized the vehicle on 14-1-1997. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the appellant failed to pay the instalments in time, the vehicle was seized. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents suggested that the appellant should be directed to pay a considerable amount towards the loan then the request of the appellant can be considered for release of the lorry. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents suggested that the appellant should be directed to pay a considerable amount towards the loan then the request of the appellant can be considered for release of the lorry. 3. We have heard both the counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents. The fact remains that the respondents advanced a sum of Rs. 3,40,500/- for purchasing the lorry, since the appellant happens to be a lorry driver. Under a Welfare Scheme, lorry drivers were helped by the respondents by providing money to purchase the lorry to eke out their livelihood. The Appellant has also given two acres of land as security for the loan. Several payments were also made towards the loan amount as stated earlier. Considering all these aspects and the fact that the appellant is depending upon the lorry for his livelihood, we direct the respondents to release the lorry on the appellant paying a sum of Rs. one lakh towards the loan amount.......... to the respondents within two weeks from today (15-4-1997). The appellant is also directed to pay the monthly instalments of Rs. 8,000/-, after the lorry has released. Such monthly instalments should be paid on or before first of every month and the first instalment should commence from 1-6-1997. If the appellant fails to pay the monthly instalments for a consecutive period of two months, the respondents are entitled to seize the lorry from the appellant, without any further notice. On payment of Rs. One Lakh within the above stipulated date, the respondents are directed to release the lorry so as to enable the appellant to eke out his livelihood by running the lorry. In that view of the matter, the order passed in the writ petition stands set aside and this writ appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs. 4. C.M.P. Nos. 5504 and 5505 of 1997. Since the main case writ appeal itself is allowed, with direction, the above C.M.Ps. are dismissed as unnecessary. Appeal allowed.