K.M. Joseph, J.@mdashPetitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and to the stage carriage bearing No. KL-13/J-254 and also grant adequate protection to operate the vehicle peacefully without any threat and also forcible seizure from the 2nd respondent, his men and agents.
ii) Issue appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 complaint and to do the needful to prevent violence and other irregularities by the 2nd respondent, its men and agents against the life of the petitioner and their properties including the stage carriage.
2. The case in short of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing No. KL 13/J 254 which is hypothecated with the second respondent and amounts due have been paid. But, the second respondent is insisting on further payment which is illegal. Further allegations are made in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition which reads as follows:
3. On 30/07/2010, at about 5 pm, some of the agents of the financier again came to the bus stand and tried to take the vehicle by force. Due to the timely intervention of the staff of the petitioner''s vehicle, no such forcible seizure was affected till date. The agents of the 2nd respondent threatened the staff of the vehicle and also the petitioner. Now, the petitioner''s life and property are in danger. The petitioner also submitted a complaint dated 31/07/2010 seeking their intervention in the matter and to grant adequate and effective police protection. The copy of the said request is produced and marked as Exhibit P4.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has no intention at all to seize the vehicle except in the manner provided by law. He would also point out that the case set up by the petitioner in paragraph 3 is at variance with what is stated in Ext.P4 representation.
4. In view of the fact that the second respondent has submitted before us that they have no intention to illegally seize the vehicle in question belonging to the petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition by recording the said submission.
