IMPORTANT POINT
Public Interest Litigation should not be misused for individual grievances; proper legal procedures must be followed for vehicle repossession under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

“PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction directing the respondents to follow the procedure prescribed under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide master circular dated 01-07-2014, in respect of re-possession/seizure of vehicles purchased with assistance of financial institutions.

(b) Issue any other, writ, rule or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case.

(c) To award cost of the Writ Petition (PIL).

2. Admittedly, the issue as raised in this Public Interest Litigation does not involve any issue which pertains to public welfare or in public interest. The question, as raised in this PIL is on two aspects:-

“(a) As to whether the vehicles purchased with financial assistance can be permitted to be forcibly seized, without following the due procedure prescribed under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide master circular dated 01- 07-2014, with the help of goons, musclemen working as Recovery agents of the Banks and Financial Institutions?

(b) As to whether after coming into force of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the financial institutions are justified in ignoring the Provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002, when the purpose behind the enactment was to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial asset and enforcement of security interest?

3. It is relevant to give the reference of certain averments, as made in para 7, 8 and 9 of the present PIL, which are extracted herein as below:-

“7. That on 14.08.2023 the petitioner was traveling from Haridwar to New Delhi through NH-58 and when the petitioner crossed toll plaza at Bhadrabad and travelling towards New Delhi, some people across the road side were shouting over a person unknown to the petitioner, who was inside the car along with his family. The petitioner stopped and tried to intervene for sake of family and small kids inside the car, wherein, petitioner had acquired the knowledge that the person who were abusing the driver of the car family were the muscleman and recovery agents of financier bank and they came to forcibly take the possession of the car, which was allegedly purchased with financial assistance.

8. That being asked the reason it was revealed that the car was purchased on loan and EMI had fallen due, therefore, they were authorised to take possession of the vehicle and the procedure they were adopting was in accordance with the law. It is apt to mention here that to the utter surprise within no passage of time, declining the request of kinds and family members who were sitting inside the car, these people had taken the possession of the car, leaving the family on road.

9. That after having witnessed the aforesaid incident the petitioner got shocked. The petitioner tried to gather knowledge and information in respect of procedure to be followed in respect of seizure or taking back possession of vehicles in case where EMI had fallen due.”

4. It appears from the averments, as made in the aforesaid paragraphs, the petitioner was travelling on 14.08.2023 in a Car which was purchased on loan and since there was some default, the authorised agents of the dealers forcibly took the possession of the financed vehicle.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the aggrieved person and the cause, for which the PIL has been preferred, admittedly is not a public cause or the cause in public interest, rather it pertains to the cause of an individual, who took loan and purchased the Car. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was travelling in the Car. This itself reveals that the petitioner has been projecte