A financier cannot take possession of the security, namely, the vehicles in question without initiating any proceeding in law.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the inaction on the part of the police authorities for not taking steps to recover the vehicles/ trucks bearing registration Nos. WB-11a2658, WB-11a-2659, WB-IIA-2665 and wb11a-2542 which according to the petitioner have been forcibly taken away by the hired men engaged by the financier company, namely, Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, the respondent No. 4 herein.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the aforesaid vehicles were loaded with cement and the same were stopped by the hired antisocial persons engaged by the financier company, namely, the respondent No. 4 near alampur More within the Sankrail Police station, Howrah, and thereafter the said. vehicles are forcibly taken away by those hired persons. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that those vehicles have been kept in the garage of the respondent No. 5.

( 3 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that initially five trucks were purchased by the petitioner on 20th April 2001 and subsequently in May 2001, further five trucks were purchased by the said petitioner. According to the petitioner, the sale of the aforesaid vehicles, was partly financed by the said financier company, namely, the respondent No. 4 herein and the balance payment was made by the petitioner our of his own funds.

( 4 ) IT has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the financier company, Ashok leyland Finance Limited, being the respondent No. 4 herein, took the forcible possession of the aforesaid 4 vehicles from the custody of the petitioner without initiating or even attempting to initiate any legal proceeding. The petitioner on the other hand took recourse to the process of law by lodging a complaint with the higher police authorities of the Howrah District for recovery of the aforesaid vehicles but according to the petitioner. But no step has been taken by the police authorities and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicles were purchased by the petitioner directly from the manufacturer and a portion of the total sale price of the aforesaid vehicles was financed by the respondent No. 4 herein and the balance amount was paid admittedly by the petitioner. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said respondent no. 4 is not the vendor of the aforesaid vehicles. The petitioner however, admitted that he could not make payment of the last three instalments due to the financial crunch.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has claimed ownership of the vehicles in question from the date of purchase. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner has been recorded as the registered owner in the Certificate of registration issued by the Motor Vehicles Department in respect of the aforesaid vehicles.

( 7 ) MR. Asish Sanyal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner is essentially a loan agreement and the petitioner cannot be called a hirer in respect of the vehicles in question. Referring to the said Certificate of Registration learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 was never the owner of the vehicles. According to the petitioner, the vehicles are hypothecated to the respondent No. 4 by way of security for the loan advanced towards the sale price of the 10 vehicles including the aforesaid four vehicles although the petitioner is the owner in respect of the said vehicles. Mr. Sanyal urged before this Court that the financier cannot take possession of the security, namely, the vehicles in question without initiating any proceeding in law.

( 8 ) MR. Sanyal further submits that the police authorities herein failed to act in an appropriate manner even after lodging of the complaint by the petitioner. The learned counsel of the petitioner also submits that no one can be