ORDER 30.03.2006 — The petitioner in this writ application prays for a direc¬tion to the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 to take action against the persons who are named in the F.I.R. lodged by the driver of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02-AC-0639 and also for a direction to the opposite party No.2 to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner by accepting two monthly instalments i.e. for the months of August and September, 2005. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a vehi¬cle bearing the aforesaid registration number financed by the ICICI Bank. The petitioner was required to pay back the amount to the bank in sixty instalments and accordingly as per terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement he had signed sixty post dated cheques and the same were to be encashed by the bank. According to the petitioner, the said cheques were being encashed by the bank towards realization of the instalments from time to time and suddenly from the month of January, 2005 an agent of the bank started collecting the instalments from the petitioner and the post dated cheques were never encashed. According to the petitioner, instalments up to the month of July, 2005 had been paid by him. However, for the months of August and September, 2005 the instalments could not be paid as a result of which on 30th September, 2005 while the vehicle, which was being used as a Taxi, was parked the same was forcibly taken from the possession of the driver by opposite party No.6 along with seven other antisocials. The driver immediately lodged an F.I.R., but no action has been taken on the said F.I.R. till today. According to the petitioner, there being no default in payment of instalments, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the hypotheca¬tion agreement and, therefore, the bank had no authority to take away the aforesaid vehicle from the possession of the petitioner. A preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by the oppo¬site party Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the entire loan amount was to be paid by the petitioner in sixty instalments starting from 1.9.2004 and the last instalment was due to be paid on 1.8.2009. A preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by the oppo¬site party Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the entire loan amount was to be paid by the petitioner in sixty instalments starting from 1.9.2004 and the last instalment was due to be paid on 1.8.2009. Some of the post-dated cheques given by the petitioner were not honoured and, therefore, an agent was asked to collect the instalments from the petitioner. It is the case of the bank that prior to August, 2005 there was also default and the petitioner had been requested to regularize the accounts by paying a sum of Rs.22,042/- towards the defaulted amount. Since the petitioner did not pay the in¬stalments, the vehicle was taken over from the possession of the petitioner in terms of the hypothecation agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as is evident from the receipts annexed to the writ application, in¬stalments up to July, 2005 had been paid and default was only for the month of August, 2005. The September instalment was not due on the date of taking over possession and, therefore, the bank under the terms of hypothecation agreement could not have taken possession of the vehicle for default in payment of only one instalment. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to certain terms and conditions con¬tained in the hypothecation agreement. However, there is no dispute that the bank had a right to take over possession of the vehicle in case of default in payment of instalment. From the cases of the respective parties, it appears that there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner had earlier defaulted in payment of instalments or not. The admitted position is that the petitioner had not paid instalments for the months of August and September, 2005. In this connection, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director, Orix Auto (India) Ltd. v. Shri Jagmander Singh and another passed in Civil Appeal No.1070 of 2006 disposed of on 10.2.2006 may be looked into. The admitted position is that the petitioner had not paid instalments for the months of August and September, 2005. In this connection, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director, Orix Auto (India) Ltd. v. Shri Jagmander Singh and another passed in Civil Appeal No.1070 of 2006 disposed of on 10.2.2006 may be looked into. In paragraph-9 of the said judgment the Apex Court observed as follows : “Before we part with the case, it is relevant to take note of submission of learned counsel for the Hirer that in several cases different High Courts have passed orders regarding the right to re-possess where the High Courts have entertained writ petitions including writ petitions styled as PIL on the question of right of financiers to take possession of the vehicle in terms of the agreement. It is stated that directions have been given to the RBI for framing guidelines in this regard. If it is really so, the orders prima facie have no legal foundation, as virtually while dealing with writ petitions subsisting contracts are being re-written. It is still more surprising that petitions styled as PIL are being entertained in this regard. Essentially these are matters of contract and unless the party succeeds in showing that the contract is unconscionable or opposed to public policy the scope of interference in writ petitions in such contractual matters is practically non-existence. If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. Of course the hirer can avail such statutory remedy as may be available. But mere fact that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced. Stand of learned counsel for the respondent that convenience of the hirer cannot be over¬looked and improper seizure cannot be made. There cannot be any generalization in such matters. It would depend upon facts of each case. It would not be therefore proper for the High Courts to lay down any guideline, which would in essence amount to variation of the agreed terms of the agreement. There cannot be any generalization in such matters. It would depend upon facts of each case. It would not be therefore proper for the High Courts to lay down any guideline, which would in essence amount to variation of the agreed terms of the agreement. If any such order has been passed effect of the same shall be considered by the concerned High Court in the light of this judgment and appropri¬ate orders shall be passed.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has specifically laid down that the disputes of this nature are essentially matters of contract and unless the party succeeds in showing that the con¬tract is unconscionable or opposed to public policy, the scope of interference in writ petitions in such contractual matters is practically non-existence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince the Court as to how the contract is uncon¬scionable or opposed to public policy. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ application so far as taking over possession of the vehicle by the opposite party-bank is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that antisocials are being utilized by the bank for taking forcible possession of the vehicle and the F.I.R. lodged against such antisocials is not being attended to. We do not express opinion in this regard since there is nothing on record to show that the bank had engaged antisocials for the purpose of taking over possession of the vehicle of the petitioner. However, F.I.R. having been lodged, law will take its own course and this Court has nothing to do in this regard. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.