Point of Law : Petitioner is seeking enforcement of the private contract, that is, the loan agreement in the manners which are favourable to him. The enforcement of the terms and condition of a contract which are in the realm of private law is not maintainable in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition seeking invocation of the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the premise that a vehicle purchased by him from the respondent no. 4 pursuant to a loan agreement, had been re-possessed by the respondent no. 4 through the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 in an allegedly forcible manner.

2. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition can be briefly stated as follows :-

2.1. In the month of April, 2017, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 to provide him financial assistance to purchase an equipment vehicle, Maker’s name : Case New Holland India Private Limited bearing Engine no. 8045.45*735-191683 and Chassis no. NKJ770EMKGKH00737 [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short]. The respondent no. 4 agreed to provide financial assistance in the form of loan to the extent of Rs. 22,00,000/-to the petitioner to purchase the subject-vehicle. In that connection, a loan agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 with certain terms and conditions. The petitioner has claimed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 7,47,000/-to the respondent no. 4 at the inception and thereafter, paid 12 nos. of subsequent installments, Rs. 7,04,000/-in total, to the respondent no. 4 on different dates up to 25.01.2019. He has, thus, claimed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 14,51,000/-in total to the respondent no. 4 in respect of the loan agreement he had entered into with the respondent no. 4.

2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the subject-vehicle was finally handed over to him on 30.05.2017 and at the time of delivery of the subject-vehicle, a temporary registration certificate was granted for the subject-vehicle and it was valid up to 29.06.2017. The petitioner had, thereafter, requested the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 to extend the validity period of the temporary registration certificate after 29.06.2017 but the said respondents did not provide no objection certificate [NOC] for extending the validity period of the temporary registration certificate. As a result, the petitioner could not ply the subject-vehicle properly in town areas for the purpose of earning his livelihood. All the representations made by the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 did not bring any favourable action from their ends.

2.3. On 19.11.2018, the Arbitrator, appointed by the respondent no. 4, issued a notice from Kolkata. Though it was mentioned that along with the notice dated 19.11.2018, a Statement of Money Claim was annexed but no such Statement of Money Claim was supplied to the petitioner when he was served with the said notice. A legal notice dated 27.02.2019 was thereafter, received by the petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 18,43,589.98 along with penal interest, late payment and other charges in respect of the subject-vehicle. The legal notice made references to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4.

2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner received a summon from the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Kolkata whereby he was asked to appear before the said learned Court on 20.12.2018 in connection with a complaint case initiated against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [as amended].

2.5. In view of progression of events in the aforesaid manner, the petitioner apprehended that the subject-vehicle might be re-possessed by the respondent no. 4 and thereafter, put in auction within a short period and in that event, he would sustain heavy loss as the subject-vehicle was his source of income. The apprehension of the petitioner regarding re-possession of the subject-vehicle became a reality when on 23.02.2019 the representatives of the respondent no. 4 took possession of the subjec