JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an art.226 petition filed as back as November 6, 2006. It is yet to be admitted. The two orders made in the case are dated December 6, 2006 and February 19, 2007. They are quoted below: 06.12.2006: - On the prayer of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, matter is adjourned till Monthly List of January-2007. 19.02.2007: - None appears for the Petitioner. Learned Advocates for the respondents are present. Let the writ petition be struck off the list. None appears for the petitioner today as well. Counsel for the third respondent submits that his client is being unnecessarily harassed. 2. THE principal relief sought in the petition is quoted below: (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to arrange for all necessary Police help and/or protection to recover the vehicle in question from the possession of the private respondent and also to handover the same to the writ petitioner. Taking loan from the third 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 and then gave a notice dated July 12, 2006 that the petitioner's failure to pay within the period mentioned therein would compel it to sell the vehicle. 3. IN my opinion, this petition is not maintainable. The second respondent, the officer in charge of Shibpur police station in Howrah, was not empowered to do anything in the private dispute between the petitioner and the finance company. It seems to me that by filing this petition the petitioner has been harassing the third respondent. IN my opinion, the petition should be dismissed with costs. For these reasons, I dismiss the petition ordering the petitioner to pay the third respondent Rs.5000 costs within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.