Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 991 (CAL)

Pasupati Karmakar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-08-16

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE Court :- This is an art. 226 petition filed as back as August 29, 2006. It is yet to be admitted. 2. THE two orders made in the case are dated November 24, 2006 and December 17, 2007. They are quoted below: 24.11.06: None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called on. Let the matter go out of list. Liberty to mention after three weeks. 17.12.07: None appears on behalf of the Petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing. Let the matter go out of the list. Liberty to mention after six weeks. None appears for the petitioner today as well. Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that his client is being unnecessarily harassed. The principal relief sought in the petition is quoted below: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding the respondents, their men, agents, servants, associates and each one of them mainly the respondent No.2 to recover the possession of the Vehicle bearing No. WB-51-5282 and hand ovber the same to the petitioner immediately; 3. TAKING loan from the fourth respondent, a private finance company, the petitioner purchased a vehicle. He was in default on the loan. The contract between the parties entitled the finance company to repossess the vehicle in case of default on loan. It repossessed the vehicle on February 20, 2006 under an inventory. The petitioner claims that he sent a letter dated February 21, 2006 to the officer in charge of Bhadreshwar police station stating that the finance company people forcibly repossessed the vehicle. In my opinion, this petition is not maintainable. The officer in charge of the police station, the second respondent, was not supposed to recover the vehicle and give its possession to the petitioner. He was under no statutory obligation to restore the petitioner's possession of the vehicle. It seems to me that by filing this petition the petitioner has been harassing the fourth respondent. 4. FOR these reasons, I dismiss the petition ordering the petitioner to pay the fourth respondent Rs.5000 costs within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.