Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The short question that emerges for decision on this writ petition is whether the police authorities and the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah (hereafter the RTO), the respondent no.8, in not recovering the trucks bearing nos. WB-11B/1246 and WB-11B/1204 (hereafter the trucks) of the petitioner from the clutches of the respondents 10 and 11, acting on the petitioner’s complaints dated December 1 and 4, 2015, have made themselves liable to be commanded by a Mandamus for such purpose.

2. The pleadings in the writ petition are basically to the effect that the hire-purchase agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and, therefore, the respondent no.10 (hereafter the company) could not have taken possession of the trucks without an award/order being passed by the arbitrator; also that, such forcible dispossession having been brought to the notice of the police as well as the RTO, it was their bounden duty to set things right by registering an F.I.R. against the respondents 10 and 11 and by restoring possession of the trucks in favour of the petitioner.

3. It is not in dispute that the trucks were purchased by the petitioner with finance p