IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINIT0AL

Writ Petition No.808 of 2021 (M/S)

Vishnu Sardar

..…Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others

…Respondents

Advocate: Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1

to 3.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5.

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner to the present writ petition, has contended that after

procuring the financial assistance from the private finance company i.e.

respondent no.4 herein of which respondent no.5 is the Manager, the petitioner

has purchased a truck, and as per the terms of the loan agreement, he contends

that he was suppose to remit the total loan amount in 46 equal installments till

20.12.2014. The petitioner contends, that he has already remitted the entire

amount and in fact according to him no amount is due to be paid. Though he has

simultaneously pleads that total amount payable to respondent no.4, was

calculated to be Rs.10,38,400/- He submits that the respondent no.4, with an

endorsement made by the Zonal Authority of respondent no.4, on 23.11.2018

had issued a demand notice on frivolous grounds and in the said notice of

23.11.2018, the total amount, which was shown to be recoverable from the

petitioner, was assessed to be Rs.11,80,000/- though this liability is disputed by

the petitioner.

2.

Be that as it may.

3.

Respondent no.4 is also shown to have initiated the proceedings

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner, before

the court of Judicial Magistrate, which is presently pending consideration. It is

contended by the petitioner, that respondent no.4 had issued yet another notice

2

calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.17,32,996.05/- as an

amount which they contend was allegedly due to be paid, but the petitioner

contends that since already settled the amount with respondent no.4, the entire

proceedings which were being initiated by the respondents against the petitioner,

are alleged to be frivolous and based on frivolous grounds. Hence, he denies the

correctness of the notice, which was issued on 05.04.2021.

4.

The allegation of the petitioner is that under the purported amount

which was allegedly shown due to be paid by the petitioner, it was on

26.03.2021, that respondent nos.4 and 5 by engaging their private agents and

muscleman are said have forcefully taken the vehicle Eicher Truck bearing

Registration No.UK06 CA 2064, in their custody alongwith the loaded Bajaj

Company trollies, which has been sought to be released by the petitioner by

preferring the present writ petition.

5.

When the writ petition was heard initially the Coordinate Bench on

08.04.2021, while calling upon the respondents to file their counter affidavits

had issued notices to respondent nos.4 & 5; with an order of restraint that

respondent nos.4 & 5, will not sell the truck, which is thus alleged to have been

withheld by them on 26.03.2021.

6.

As against the alleged action of respondent nos.4 & 5, the petitioner

submits to have filed written complaint before Police Chowki SIDCUL, Police

Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar on 27.03.2021, and

simultaneously a complaint was also filed on Chief Minister’s portal on

27.03.2021. But ultimately the proceedings, which were initiated by the

petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Misc.

Application No.214 of 2021, Vishnu Sardar vs. Raj Gupta & others, has been

rejected by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, by an

order of 05.07.2021.

7.

The question, which arose for consideration in the present writ

petition, are that as to whether that writ of mandamus for the release of alleged

truck, which was said to have been seized by respondent nos.4 & 5, w