Dipali Roy Barman @ Jaya Barman vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4323 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010202732021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/7053/2021

         DIPALI ROY BARMAN @ JAYA BARMAN
         W/O- LATE MANINDRA KR. DEV BARMAN
         R/O- PURANI BAZAR
         WARD NO. 7, PO AND PS- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM), PIN-
         783348



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL
         ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          DHUBRI
          PO AND PS- DHUBRI
          DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM)
          PIN- 783301

         3:THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER
          DHUBRI
          PO AND PS- DHUBRI
          DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM)
          PIN- 783301

         4:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
          REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
         ASTC
          PALTAN BAZAR
          PARIBAHAN BHAWAN
          GUWAHATI- 781008

         5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4

             NORTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NBSTC)
             PARIBAHAN BHAWAN
             SAGAR DIGHI WEST
             PO
             PS AND DIST- COOCH BEHAR (WEST BENGAL)
             PIN- 73610

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A F N U MOLLAH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM (R 2,3)




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                         ORDER

07.11.2022

Heard Mr. A. F. N. U. Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the widow of Munindra Kumar Dev Barman, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 20.03.1999. She preferred a claim petition under M.V. Act which was registered as MAC Case No. 54/1999 for compensation.

3. The learned Member, MAC Tribunal, Dhubri by his award and judgment dated 14.08.2002 directed the respondent No. 5 in the present writ petition to pay compensation of an award amounting to Rs. 6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Forty Thousand) only within 60 days, failing which the respondent No. 5 was directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal being MAC Page No.# 3/4

App. 145/2003 before this Court and this Court under its order dated 25.04.2014, dismissed the aforesaid appeal and enhanced the award to Rs. 8,08,800/- (Rupees eight lacs eight thousand eight hundred) only with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the payment as against Rs. 6,40,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal, Dhubri.

5. Though the said MAC App. Was dismissed in the year 2014, it is alleged that the respondent No. 5 has not paid any amount. Accordingly, the present petitioner approached an application under Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913, for recovery of the compensation amount as public due. However, such amount has still not been paid and the petitioner claims that though he has having an alternative remedy of pursuing the matter before the Bakijai authority, however, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly in view of the failure on the part of Bakijai Authority to bring the proceeding into its logical conclusion. The said proceeding has been proved to be not an efficacious alternative remedy.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Bakijai Officer to expedite the Bakijai Case No. Misc. 184/2019 in connection with MAC No. 54/1999 with a specific time frame.

7. During the course of hearing and a pointed query, Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel on instruction from his client submitted that the entire due can be paid within a period 6 months before the Bakijai Officer in installment.

8. In view of such submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction Page No.# 4/4

to the respondent No. 5 to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the Bakijai Officer within a period of six months from today. If such payment is not made as directed, the same will bear additional interest @ 3% and the Bakijai Officer will be at liberty to exercise its power under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 to recover the same.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant