Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 209 (AP)

Adapa Durga v. HDB Financial Services Ltd.

2021-03-26

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2021
ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The petitioner had purchased a Lorry bearing No. AP16TC4468 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 11,90,000/- from the 1st respondent, which is a private financial services Ltd. The petitioner had hypothecated the vehicle to the respondents, as security for repayment of the loan on 23.06.2019. This loan was to be repaid by way of monthly installments. As the petitioner defaulted in payment of two monthly installments, the respondents had repossessed the vehicle at Cuttack, Orissa State, when the vehicle was transporting Iron ore. The petitioner alleges that this repossession was done without following any of the guidelines for such seizure. The respondent issued a pre-sale notice dated 31.10.2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 11,96,541/-, failing which the vehicle of the Petitioner would be sold. 2. The petitioner assailed the said seizure and subsequent refusal of the respondents to release the vehicle of the Petitioner along with the iron ore, even upon an offer of the petitioner to pay two monthly installments, which had fallen due. It is submitted that the said seizure is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur and others, (2007) 2 SCC 711 . 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma 2008 (3) Supreme 683, to contend that a writ petition, against a private party, would also be maintainable. In this case the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a part of the judgment of the High Court should be expunged as the High Court had passed certain observations, which were objected to by the Appellant. This case was not on the question of maintainability of a writ petition. 4. The petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in City Corporation Maruti Finance Ltd., v. Vijayalakshmi AIR 2012 SC 509 . The facts of this case also show that this judgment is not on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. 5. It is well settled that a Writ of Mandamus is a remedy against the inaction of the State or a wrong action of the State. This remedy is not available against a private person. The facts of this case also show that this judgment is not on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. 5. It is well settled that a Writ of Mandamus is a remedy against the inaction of the State or a wrong action of the State. This remedy is not available against a private person. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, over time, had expanded the scope of the term "State" to include the State itself and its instrumentalities and even private bodies, in exceptional circumstances where a private body undertakes public functions and duties, which are akin to the functions of the State and its instrumentalities. 6. In the present case, the respondents are private parties, which are in the business of vehicle finance and other financial services. These activities cannot, by any stretch of imagination, being included as public functions, which would bring these organizations within the ambit of the term "State". In the circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.