Gauhati High Court
Mukul Bayan vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 14 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010018502014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6116/2014
MUKUL BAYAN
S/O- SHRI MONORANJAN BAYAN, METUWA KUCHI, BARPETA, ASSAM,
THE REGISTERED OWNER OF M.V. NO. AS 15/3227 MARUTI VAN TAXI.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPTT., GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 6.
2:THE SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF HOME AFFAIRS
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY- 6
ASSAM.
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BARPETA.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BARPETA.
5:BIMAN ROY
C.I. CHAYGAON
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Choudhury, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Ms. M.D. Borah, SC, Transport Deptt. R-1
Mr. B.J. Talukdar, Advocate, R-2, 3 & 4.
Mr. M.U. Mondal, Advocate, R-5
Date of hearing and judgment : 14.09.2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. The Petitioner herein aggrieved at the inaction of the Respondent
Authorities in not returning the vehicle of the Petitioner is compelled to
approach this Court for the second time by way of the instant writ petition.
2. From a perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the Petitioner
herein had purchased a Maruti Van bearing Registration No.AS 15/3227 at a
price of Rs.2,20,000/- from one Md. Minul Hussain. The Petitioner used the said
vehicle as a Taxi for which the petitioner had also obtained a permit. On
16.04.2001, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta vide an order
requisitioned the vehicle of the Petitioner in terms with Section 160 read with
Section 166 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of
1951') and thereby directed the Petitioner to report the said vehicle of the
Petitioner along with his driver and spare tyres on 17.04.2001 at 8:00 a.m.
Thereafter the said vehicle had not been de-requisitioned or returned to the
Page No.# 3/6
Petitioner, for which the Petitioner had approached the concerned Deputy
Commissioner, Barpeta vide various representations. As the said representations
submitted by the Petitioner beard no result, the Petitioner was compelled to
approach this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered
as WP(C) No.2981/2002.
3. In the said writ proceedings this Court while issuing notice on 13.05.2002
directed in the interim that the Respondents should release the vehicle of the
Petitioner in serviceable condition. Thereupon also the Respondent Authorities
did not return the vehicle to the Petitioner, for which the Petitioner not only was
deprived of the vehicle but also incurred huge business loss. The said writ
petition i.e. WP(C) No.2981/2002 was disposed off vide an order dated
18.05.2010 observing inter alia, that vide the interim order dated 13.05.2002
the final relief was already granted in the writ petition and accordingly the writ
petition was disposed off in terms with the interim order dated 13.05.2002.
Thereupon also nothing happened and the Petitioner was compelled to submit
representations as well as issue a Legal Notice to the Respondents herein. The
representations of the Petitioner as well as the Legal Notice fell into the deaf
ears of the Respondents for which the Petitioner had been again compelled to
approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition in the year 2014.
4. From the records it reveals that on 28.11.2014 Notice was issued. Various
affidavits have been filed by the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 and there were
additional affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.3 & 5. From the affidavits so
filed by the Respondents there is no mention whatsoever as to when the vehicle
of the Petitioner bearing Registration No.AS 15/3227 was de-requisitioned.
Page No.# 4/6
Although there has been various statements being made in the affidavits as well
as in the additional affidavits to the effect that the vehicle was being driven
without a number plate for which the vehicle was seized but without the de-
requisitioning of the vehicle, the custody of the vehicle continues to remain with
the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, who had requisitioned in terms with Section
160 read with Section 166 of the Act of 1951. Therefore all the statements so
made in the affidavits pertaining to the said aspect that the vehicle was seized
as the vehicle was driven without the number plate in the month of November
2001 has no relevance.
5. The record further shows that the Petitioner had filed an additional
affidavit claiming the Petitioner had purchased the vehicle at Rs.2,20,000/- and
ass such sought for the value of the vehicle along with the business loss which
occasioned to the Petitioner. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of
the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, who is the Additional
Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta wherein also it is mentioned that in order to
compensate the Petitioner there was a move for getting necessary sanction for
funds but as the matter is pending before this Court the same has not yet been
determined.
6. In the backdrop of the above facts, it is seen that the vehicle of the
Petitioner admittedly was requisitioned vide an order dated 16.04.2001 and the
custody of the vehicle was handed over by the Petitioner on 17.04.2001. There
is no materials on record produced by the Respondent upon whom the burden
lies that the vehicle in question was handed back to the Petitioner or there the
vehicle in question was de-requisitioned by the Respondent Authorities. This
Page No.# 5/6
Court also cannot unmindful of the fact that on 13.05.2002 there was a
direction by this Court in WP(C) No.2981/2002 directing the Respondent
Authorities to release the vehicle and thereupon also the vehicle had not been
released. The instant writ petition is now being taken up in the year 2023 and
more than 22 years have already elapsed. It is not known as to what would be
the condition of the vehicle now but it can be presumed that the said vehicle
would not be in a condition by which the Petitioner would be able to carry out
his business. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the
Petitioner at the least is entitled to the value of the vehicle which is
Rs.2,20,000/- as stated in his additional affidavit.
7. This Court has also duly taken note of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that apart from the value of the vehicle, the Petitioner
is entitled to further amounts on account of the business loss during this period
of requisition. In the opinion of this Court the said aspect cannot be ascertained
in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution but as the Petitioner at
present has been agitating the said rights before this Court claiming the said
compensation for the business loss diligently, liberty is given to the Petitioner to
approach the Civil Court claiming such compensation as deem fit. Moreover the
non returning of the vehicle to the Petitioner gives the Petitioner a continuing
cause of action. It is therefore made clear that if the Petitioner approaches the
competent Civil Court, this aspect of the matter would be duly taken note of
while computing the period of limitation.
7. In that view of the matter the instant writ petition therefore stands
disposed off with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to disburse to
Page No.# 6/6
the Petitioner an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- within 45 (forty five) days from the
date of a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Deputy
Commissioner, Barpeta. It is further observed and directed that if the Deputy
Commissioner, Barpeta fails to pay the said amount within the time stipulated
hereinabove, the Petitioner not only would be entitled to other remedies on
account of the violation of the directions passed by this Court but would also be
entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of default of the directions so
passed herein.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
