S.P.MEHROTRA,ANIL KUMAR,J - (1.) WE have heard Miss. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, and perused the record.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to release the vehicle of the petitioner without any delay. It appears that the petitioner took loan from the respondent no.3 (Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow) and the respondent no.4 (Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Sultanpur) under an agreement for purchase of Truck. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the instalments, and, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 seized the Truck in question. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. is merely a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is not covered within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, it has not been shown that any statutory duty on the part of the said Company has been violated. In the circumstances, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (respondent nos. 3 and 4) is not maintainable. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6556(M/B) of 2009, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 14.7.2009 wherein the writ petition against Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. was held to be not maintainable for the same reasons.;