JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Mithal, Saurabh Lavania, JJ.

1. Heard Shri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Singh, learned standing' counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the alleged illegal action of respondent No. 4 in sending muscle-men for recovery of the loan taken by him for the purposes of purchasing motor vehicle:

3. The submission of learned counsel, for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 cannot take law into his own hands and that the District Magistrate be directed to take strong action against the respondent No. 4.

4. The pleadings of the averments made-in the writ petition reveal that the cause of action of the petitioner is against, respondent No. 4, a private respondent Finance Company. In' case the said Finance Company is adopting any coercive methods, foreign to the known procedure of "law," the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to lodge an F.I.R. or a complaint before the Magistrate or to take civil action. The writ petition against a private Company is not maintainable in law.

5. In view of the above this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the p