JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

The present batch of 30 writ petitions raising a common question of law are being decided by a single judgment.

2. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as regards the scope and maintainability of writ petition in the matters of re-possession of the vehicles financed by the Private Finance Companies/Private Banks.

3. For the facility of reference facts are being referred from CWP No.7599 of 2020 titled as ' Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab and others'.

Facts

4. The petitioner who is a transporter by profession had purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-23 T 4785 after obtaining finance from respondent No.7 i.e. HDB Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the 'Finance Company') for a sum of Rs.19,25,000/-. The amount was to be repaid in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each which were to commence w.e.f. 04.03.2017 and payable till 04.02.2021. It is averred that 35 instalments amounting to a total of Rs.17,50,000/- were paid and that 12 instalments were due. An additional amount of Rs.4 lakhs was financed for fabrication of the body of the vehicle for which 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs.10,420x30=3,12,600/- were to be paid and 30 instalments against the same were paid. Despite the instalments being paid regularly, the vehicle in question was recovered by the recovery agents of respondents No.7 and 8-Finance Company on 07.03.2020 while it was on a commercial engagement carrying cargo.

5. Pursuant to the above said recovery, the petitioner approached the respondents and contended that he had been regularly paying the instalments and as against the total financed amount of Rs.23,25,000/-, an amount of Rs.20,63,100/- already stands paid and the outstanding amount was a meager sum of Rs.2,61,900/-. A request was thus made for release of the vehicle which was however, declined.

6. The nationwide lockdown was however imposed w.e.f. 22.03.2020 due to which the petitioner could not pursue his remedies to seek return of his vehicle although he continued to make calls to the local branch, however, the Finance Company insisted on re-sale of the vehicle for recovery of its outstanding amount. A representation was thereafter made by the petitioner to the police Authorities against the respondent Finance Company on 18.05.2020 but no steps for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner were taken.

7. Reliance was also placed on Section 45L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 which empowers the Reserve Bank of India to frame guidelines for Non-Banking Finance Companies/Institutions (NBFCs). The relevant Section is extracted as under:-

"45L. Power of Bank to call for information from financial institutions and to give directions.-

(1) If the Bank is satisfied for the purpose of enabling it to regulate the credit system of the country to its advantage it is necessary so to do, it may-

(a) require financial institutions either generally or any group of financial institutions or financial institution in particular, to furnish to the Bank in such form, at such intervals and within such time, such statements, information or particulars relating to the business of such financial institutions or institution, as may be specified by the Bank by general or special order.

(b) give to such institutions either generally or to any such institution in particular, directions relating to the conduct of business by them or by it as financial institutions or institution.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of th