Judgment :- 1. The petitioner company is the financier financing vehicle. One such vehicle by itself is a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20 BQ 3978. The said vehicle was seized by the police in connection with the crime under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act on 3.8.2011. In respect of the release of the same vehicle, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.24628 of 2011 as against the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvannamali and the owner of the vehicle. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 24.11.2011 giving liberty. At that time, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram and if the petitioner was intended to release the vehicle, he should participate in the said proceedings. Therefore, it was observed that the said Revenue Divisional Officer was not a party to the earlier Writ Petition and that no direction can be issued. With this liberty, the Writ Petition was closed. The petitioner is once again before this Court for the very same relief. 2. In this case in order to cover up the earlier lapse, he has also made the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram as a party respondent to the Writ Petition. The contention raised by the petitioner was that before confiscation of the vehicle, appropriate proceedings has to be initiated in terms of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A reference was made to Section 6(B) of the Act, wherein the procedure for confiscation of the essential commodity including the vehicle involved in the said offence is set out. The case of the petitioner was that such procedure was not followed. The petitioner claimed that they are entitled for notice as the vehicle is a hypothecated vehicle. Therefore, they have come forward before this Court seeking for a direction to consider the representation dated 27.12.2011, requesting the District Revenue Officer to release the vehicle to the petitioner company. 3. Such a contention is not at all maintainable. Even under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person who is having hire purchase agreement is not the owner of the vehicle and even Registration Certificate produced merely shows that the vehicle is subject to hire purchase agreement. It may be a case where there was a default in payment of instalment. Even under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person who is having hire purchase agreement is not the owner of the vehicle and even Registration Certificate produced merely shows that the vehicle is subject to hire purchase agreement. It may be a case where there was a default in payment of instalment. If there is a provision for reconveyance, then with the help of the Court, they may seek for reconveyance of the vehicle for seizure. When a person is involved in a crime and the accused owner is before the court, it is for that accused, who is a real owner to make appropriate application. Under criminal law, there is no locus standi for the person, who advanced money towards hire purchase agreement, in seeking to release the vehicle. In any event, such a prayer cannot be made before this Court and it has to be done before the appropriate authority or court, who has seized of the matter. 4. In the absence of the petitioner having any locus standi, the present prayer cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.