MAHITOSH MAJUMDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed against the show cause notice under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 dated April 13, 1987 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region for cancellation of permit under Section 60 of the Act of 1939 and the order of requisition dated 25th April, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas North, Barasat (the District Magistrate hereafter) under Section 3 of the West Bengal Requisition of Vehicles Act, 1979 (for short the said Act hereinafter) read with Notification No. 5517/wt dated April 14, 1987 of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal. Order dated April 14, 1987 was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department in the manner follows:- "no 5517-WT Government of West Bengal Transport Department dated 14-4-1987. ( 2 ) A specimen copy of the show cause notice issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region under Section 60 of the Act of 1939 is contained in Annexure K to the writ application as follows :-"it appears that the vehicle under reference has not been plying in the Route since 8-4-1987 causing great inconveniences to the travelling public which is detriment to the interest of public service. You are therefore, directed to show cause within ten days from the date of this notice as to why the permit should not be cancelled for violation of Section 60 of the, M. V. Act, 1939. "2a. The District Magistrate issued an order under Section 3 of the said Act to the following effect:- "whereas the undersigned is of the opinion that the vehicle mentioned in the schedule below is needed for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community of New Barrackpore. And, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the West Bengal Requisitioning of Vehicles Act, 1979 read with Notification No. 5518 WT dated April 14, 1987 of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, the undersigned hereby requisitions the vehicles described below for a period of two months from the date of requisition unless released earlier, and directs that the possession, of, and control over the said vehicle be made over on 26-4-1987 at 3 p. m. at District Motor Vehicles Office (Barasat) where possession of the said vehicle will be taken. The compensation for the requisition of the vehicle shall be paid as provided in the above-mentioned Act. " ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner No. 1 is an association of operators of Mini Buses in Route No. 175 and the writ petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 are operators of Mini Buses in Route No. 175 plying between New Barrackpore and Alipore National Library (for brevity the subject route hereinafter) by virtue of permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority under the Act, 1939 in accordance with time table supplied to the petitioners from time to time. The writ petitioners No. 2 to 16, all educated unemployed persons, after taking loan from different Banks as well as financial institutions by proper hypothecation and mortgage of valuable ornaments and other properties purchased the respective mini buses for plying on the subject route. A list i. e. Annexure "a" to the writ petition shows the names and addresses of the petitioners, their respective mini buses bearing numbers and permit numbers. Loan thus taken by the petitioners at high rate of interest for the reasons to be recorded hereafter could not be paid by the petitioners as a result thereof, the interest went on mounting to the detriment of the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE genesis of the entire problem is the trade union actions resorted to by the respondents Nos. 31 to 35 who formed a trade union in the name and style of New Barrackpore Mini Bus Workers' Union (for brevity the Workers' Union hereinafter) having its registered office at No. 45, Acharya Prafulia Chandra Road, New Brrackpore, 24-Parganas (North ). The employees of Mini Buses run by the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 were taken as members of Shramik Union. The Office bearers as well as employees and others of the said union are members and supporters of the ruling political party, namely C. P. I. (M ). The said Workers' Union created insurmountable difficulties troubles and disturbances in the smooth and normal plying of the Mini Buses of the petitioners Nos. The Office bearers as well as employees and others of the said union are members and supporters of the ruling political party, namely C. P. I. (M ). The said Workers' Union created insurmountable difficulties troubles and disturbances in the smooth and normal plying of the Mini Buses of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 on the subject route and thereby enormous loss and damages have been worked out to each of the petitioners, the owners of the mini buses plying in the subject route with the help and support of the statutory functionaries have and had played the role of silent spectators watching the wrongful acts and illegal activities of respondents 31 to 35 as well as their employees; as a result, the mini bus owners and their employees were prevented from plying the Mini Buses in the subject route. The Workers' Union in its desperate bid to take control of the said service of the Mini Bus for their own profits and gains at the cost of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 resorted to illegal activities for the stoppage of the plying of the Mini Buses. ( 5 ) DESPITE several representations made to the authorities under the Act, 1939 as well as the police authorities for taking necessary steps against the respondent Nos. 31 to 35 and their associates for deliberate acts creating hindrances to the smooth plying of the mini buses belonging to the writ petitioners Nos. 2 to 16, the statutory functionaries being respondents herein acted illegally and remained fencesitters. The said respondents Nos. 31 to 35, the office bearers of the said Workers' Union were encouraged by reason of silence and indolent attitude of the statutory functionaries to commit wrongful acts and to carry on illegal activities including the commission of offences such as, assault, intimidation, threat and wrongful confinement. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 as well as some of the employees of the mini buses of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 along with seven employees went to the concerned Officer-in-Charge, Kharda Police Station for recording the G. D. Entry but the said Officer refused to record the G. D. Entry and/or the complaints of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 and their employees who did not the line of actions of the respondents Nos. 31 to 35. ( 6 ) ULTIMATELY Hon'ble Mr. 2 to 16 and their employees who did not the line of actions of the respondents Nos. 31 to 35. ( 6 ) ULTIMATELY Hon'ble Mr. Radhika Banerjee, the then Food Minister, intervened in the matter and as a result of his intervention, an agreement was entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 10 to 30, for the purpose of smooth plying of the buses belonging to the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 on the subject route. By the said agreement, both the petitioner No. 1 and the Worker's Union evolved an amicable settlement of the demands. The agreement, thus, entered by and between the parties could not be acted upon by the petitioners by reason of the deliberate breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement intentionally committed by the respondents Nos. 31 to 35. The said respondents Nos. 31 to 35 displayed utter disregard to the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The respondents Nos. 10 to 30 developed an intolerable situation by expelling the drivers and conductors of the owners of the Mini Buses creating thereby a dead-lock in the matter of plying of mini buses on the subject route belonging to the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE respondents Nos. 10 to 30 resorted to wrongful and illegal methods by throwing out those drivers and conductors who did not act according to the dictates of respondents Nos. 31 to 35. A stalemate condition in the plying of the mini buses on the subject route is thus created and adversely affected the petitioner and the interest of the travelling public. ( 8 ) SRI Rabin Pal, respondent No. 35 by his letter dated March 29, 1987 informed the petitioner No. 2 raising illegal demands and also the decision to expel some of the workers from the said Union, as a result the expelled members from the route were prevented from working in the subject route under the petitioners as drivers or as conductors. The said decision was sought to be thrust upon the petitioners for the reason that the expelled workers did not act according to the dictates of the respondents Nos. 31 to 35. Expulsion of any workers from the subject route or mini bus of the petitioners was affected by the respondents Nos. The said decision was sought to be thrust upon the petitioners for the reason that the expelled workers did not act according to the dictates of the respondents Nos. 31 to 35. Expulsion of any workers from the subject route or mini bus of the petitioners was affected by the respondents Nos. 31 to 35 unilaterally for the purpose of gaining the complete control over the mini buses of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 by recourse to illegal methods. The petitioners became helpless and they were not in a position to repay the loan together with interest. President of the petitioner No. 1 by letter dated April 3, 1987 addressed to the Worker's Union recorded that the terms and conditions of the agreement were being violated with a view to create an impasse so that owners of mini buses might be compelled to surrender their respective Mini Buses either to the Chairman, Secretary and Route Secretary of the said Union or to stop plying their mini buses on the subject route. The said letter further recorded that in that event owners of the mini buses would take other alternative steps in the matter. ( 9 ) THE respondents Nos. 10 to 35 went on committing wrongful acts and further carried on illegal activities with a view to compelling the petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 to stop plying their mini buses on the subject route with effect from April 8, 1987. ( 10 ) THE petitioners before stopping the plying of their mini buses, intimated the Secretary, R. T. A. being respondent No. 3 about the decision. ( 11 ) BEFORE such decision to stop plying of the vehicle was taken by the petitioners, effective communication to the Secretary, R. T. A. , Calcutta Region being respondent No. 3 above was effected. The concerned respondent No. 3 was informed as to why, how and in what circumstances the decision to stop plying of the vehicle was taken. The petitioners recorded in the letter dated April 8, 1987 the facts situation in this regard. ( 12 ) THE Minister-in-Charge desired the petitioners to ply the vehicles on the subject route from April 9, 1987 morning. The petitioners recorded in the letter dated April 8, 1987 the facts situation in this regard. ( 12 ) THE Minister-in-Charge desired the petitioners to ply the vehicles on the subject route from April 9, 1987 morning. ( 13 ) THE petitioners after receipt of the letter from the Secretary, R. T. A. met him and expressed that they were ready and willing to ply the vehicle if adequate protection or help be given to the petitioners as also the employees who were willing to work. The petitioners expressed apprehension that there would be disturbance and damages might be caused to the vehicle of the petitioners by the respondents Nos. 31 to 35 and their associates. The Secretary of the R. T. A. has expressed its inability to give such protection to the petitioner. In reply dated April 14, 1987 the petitioners intimated the Secretary, that the petitioners came to discuss the matter with him but one of the owners viz. owner of mini bus No. 2829 was forcibly removed from his house on April 8, 1987 and compelled to sit down in the New Barrackpore Goomty. In such situation the petitioner expressed that in view of the physical force applied to the owner of the Mini Bus No. 2829 they would not be in a position to ply their vehicles from April 9, 1987. Petitioner further asked for co-operation from the R. T. A. but no reply was given by the Secretary, R. T. A. to the letter of the petitioner. The State of West Bengal and its officers remained silent over the discharge of statutory duties and functions in the matter as aforesaid. The petitioner raised serious allegations against the officers of local Kharda Police Station who according to the petitioner were siding the miscreants as well as the respondents Nos. 10 to 35 and their associates who exerted pressure on the petitioners and the employees by recourse to various illegal methods. ( 14 ) PETITIONER referred to a Memo No. RTA/3109/6/g dated March 3, 1987 whereby the Secretary, R. T. A. Calcutta communicated to the petitioner an order permitting 50% of the mini buses belonging to the petitioners to ply in the subject route bifurcated route 175/1 between Barasat and High Court. ( 14 ) PETITIONER referred to a Memo No. RTA/3109/6/g dated March 3, 1987 whereby the Secretary, R. T. A. Calcutta communicated to the petitioner an order permitting 50% of the mini buses belonging to the petitioners to ply in the subject route bifurcated route 175/1 between Barasat and High Court. Sequel to the said bifurcation a chart for the new bifurcated route was supplied to the petitioners so as to enable them to ply their mini buses in accordance with the order dated March 3, 1987. Despite the fact that the R. T. A. passed the order dated March 3, 1987, permitting 50% of the mini buses belonging to the petitioners 2 to 16 to ply their vehicle in the bifurcated zone, respondents Nos. 10 to 35 with the aid of ruling political party and at the instance of Police authorities prevented the petitioners from plying the vehicles on the bifurcated route. The petitioners were forced not to ply the respective mini buses in the said bifurcated route and they were left in helpless condition. The R. T. A. remained silent over the matter. The legitimate right of the petitioner to ply mini buses in the bifurcated route was interfered with by reason of failure of the statutory authorities who are respondents herein to discharge the statutory duties enjoined upon time under law. Petitioner addressed a letter on March 9, 1987 to the Secretary Workers' Union requesting him to extend co-operation in the matter of plying of mini buses in the bifurcated route. In the 2nd week of April, 1987 the Secretary, R. T. A. issued a notice directing the petitioner to show cause in the manner mentioned herein before. The petitioner duly showed cause. The said reply of the petitioner recorded that an F agreement was entered by the Association and the Workers' Union for the smooth plying of the mini buses at the intervention of Shri Radhika Banerjee the erstwhile Ministers of Food the respondents Nos. 31 to 35 of the Workers' Union flouted the terms and conditions of the said agreement and an intolerable situation was created as a result the petitioners were compelled to stop or suspend the services of plying of mini buses till restoration of normalcy. 31 to 35 of the Workers' Union flouted the terms and conditions of the said agreement and an intolerable situation was created as a result the petitioners were compelled to stop or suspend the services of plying of mini buses till restoration of normalcy. It is further recorded in the said reply that in spite of the fact that bifurcated route was created between Barasat and High Court the plying of the mini buses by the petitioners was not permitted although the fact remains there was no fault on the part of the petitioner The Secretary, R. T. A. heard some of the petitioners and recorded inter alia to the following effect :-"secretary, R. T. A. , Calcutta placed the relevant papers and files before the members of the Board and also submitted a verbal report on the circumstances under which he had to serve show cause notice upon all the operators of Mini Bus Route No. 175 (New Barrackpore to National) Library ). ( 15 ) THE members of the Board perused the papers and heard the report of Secretary, R. T. A. Calcutta and became apprised of the facts situation. After thorough discussion the Board decided that further necessary action will be taken by this R. T. A. after getting explanation from the respective operators against show cause notice served upon the petitioners. Some of the petitioners to their utter surprise received an order impugned in the writ application. The said order was issued under Section 3 of the said Act. Except the owner of WBR-5127 no copy of the said order was served to any of the owners of the mini buses which were taken away from the garage under the order impugned in this application with the help of some of the members of workers' union at the instance of Shri Rabin Paul. ( 16 ) THE petitioners filed a number of applications for further order or orders, direction or directions. The Court on diverse date passed orders for the payment of compensation to the petitioners. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the order passed by the Appeal Court presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Ajit Kumar Sengupta J. on September 25, 1987 the appeal court gave liberty to respondents to apply for variation or vacation of the order. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the order passed by the Appeal Court presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Ajit Kumar Sengupta J. on September 25, 1987 the appeal court gave liberty to respondents to apply for variation or vacation of the order. ( 17 ) PURSUANT to the said liberty, the petitioners made a number of applications for further orders and directions upon the respondents to make payments and on diverse dates, this Court passed direction for payment to the petitioners. It is also necessary to refer that the State Government did not take out any application for vacation or modification of the order pursuant to the direction given by the Appeal Court on September 25, 1987. In the meantime, District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North), extended the period of requisition of mini bus by issuing orders under Section 3 of the said Act. Last of such extension of period of requisition was made by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, North by an order dated October 8, 1987 which reads thus:-"the undersigned extends the period of requisition of the vehicles described below for a further period till the disposal of the variation/vacation petition before the High Court, at which time further action will be taken on the basis of direction received from the High Court. " ( 18 ) THIS Court passed an order on December 18, 1988 appointing D. P. Majumdar as Special Officer to take the physical inspection of the vehicles. Inspection of vehicle under requisition was made and for that purpose, the Special Officer was given opportunity to take the help of the photographer for the purpose of vehicle now said to be lying idle. The Special Officer was directed to look into the Bank account of the petitioner to submit report on this aspect. ( 19 ) THE Special Officer filed a report on January. 18, 1988. Thereafter, again this Court directed D. P. Majumdar, the Special Officer, to see the real condition of Mini Bus and the maintenance thereof. The petitioners were also given opportunity to depute an automobile export. ( 20 ) THE Special Officer pursuant to the order passed on June 29, 1988 and submitted his report on July 8, 1988. Both the reports are treated as part of the records of this case. Copies of the reports were duly served upon all the parties. The petitioners were also given opportunity to depute an automobile export. ( 20 ) THE Special Officer pursuant to the order passed on June 29, 1988 and submitted his report on July 8, 1988. Both the reports are treated as part of the records of this case. Copies of the reports were duly served upon all the parties. The Special Officer in his report dated January 18, 1987 recorded a startling fact that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the copy of Notice could not be served upon the Advocate, J. N. Halder, appearing for the District Magistrate as he was ill. Before the Special Officer could serve notice upon District Magistrate (North), Special Officer was requested to meet the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality informing what he wrote in his notice dated January 6, 1988. ( 21 ) WHILE dealing with the letter of District Magistrate, the Special Officer recorded as follows:-"in accordance with the order passed by his Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahitosh Majumdar on December 18, 1987 in the above mentioned case, I have decided to take the physical inspection of the above mentioned vehicles on 16th January, 1988 at 2 p. m. I have also decided to take the said inspection at the ground before the office of the RTO Barasat. You are requested to direct your client, the requisitioning authority, to cause all the vehicles mentioned above to be placed on the said date, time and place so as to enable me to take their physical inspection. " ( 22 ) THE special Officer on 16th January, 1988. accompanied by Sri Mihir Dutta, son of Sri H. N. Dutta of Bishapra, New Barrackpore of 38/5, Belgachia Road, Calcutta went to the ground before the office of the RTO, Barasat for inspecting the vehicles. None of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned was present. Sri K. Routh of the R. T. A. was present on behalf of the District Magistrate and kept six vehicles on the ground before his office Six vehicles are, inter alia, as follows :- wbr-3324, WBR-4216, WBR-3151, WBR-2337, WBR-3127 and WBR-3103. The Special Officer inspected all six vehicles remaining vehicles barring the vehicle bearing Registration No. WBR-3188 was not placed there for inspection. The petitioner inspected the vehicles. The Special Officer inspected all six vehicles remaining vehicles barring the vehicle bearing Registration No. WBR-3188 was not placed there for inspection. The petitioner inspected the vehicles. The Special Officer was told that this vehicle was lying in a repairing garage called Michaelnagar Garate which was owned by one Srimati Mita Dey and managed by her husband Sri Gobinda Dey. The said garage is situated at Michaelnagar, 24-Parganas (North ). Accompanied by a clerk deputed by Sri South, the Special Officer inspected the said vehicle there at the said garage. The report of the Special Officer in respect of WBR 3188 is as follows :-"sri K. Routh, North, 24-Parganas told me that the radiator of this vehicle was stolen and that the vehicle was, therefore, lying in the garage. So I went to the garage and inspected the vehicle there. But I was surprised to see that not only the radiator but many things of the vehicle were either stolen or taken away. The vehicle was standing on 5 tyres. One tyre was stolen. Except engine there was nothing in the vehicle. But the condition of that engine could, not be checked for there were no battery, no pump, no nozzle, no self, nor any dynamo. All these were all either stolen or taken away. The platform was broken. The front bumper was lying inside the vehicle. But the rear bumper was missing. All the chairs were loose and budging. But none of the chairs had any mattress or cushion. Some of them did not have even the base. The door was completely broken. The window were also broken. There was no glass on any window save and accept one of the two of the hinder part. " ( 23 ) FINANCIAL condition of Sri Swapan Sikdar of Nabajiban Colony, Bisharpara, North 24-Parganas as would appear from the report is as follows:-"the vehicle is owned by Sri Swapan Kumar Sikdar of Nabajiban Colony, Bisharpara, North 24-Parganas. The Central Bank of India Ultadanga Branch, Calcutta-4 financed Sri Sikdar in purchasing this vehicle. The balance outstanding against Sri Sikdar on account of this vehicle on 31-12-1987 was Rs. 97,352. 95 p. " ( 24 ) IN respect of other vehicle, the report of the Special Officer states that he found on January 16, 1988 in the manner following :-"w. B. R.-3324 the front of the forepart of this vehicle was damaged. The balance outstanding against Sri Sikdar on account of this vehicle on 31-12-1987 was Rs. 97,352. 95 p. " ( 24 ) IN respect of other vehicle, the report of the Special Officer states that he found on January 16, 1988 in the manner following :-"w. B. R.-3324 the front of the forepart of this vehicle was damaged. A portion around the number plate was uncovered as there was no net. Sides are damaged. The door was broken. But the condition inside the vehicle was worse. Most of the chairs were loose or budging. Some of them were without any mattress. Three windows were without any glass. The engine had become defective. Its pressure was abnormal. There was leakage in the head caskit. Mobile consumption was excessive. W. B. R.-4216 the front of the forepart of this vehicle was damaged. There was no net covering the middle portion of the front. Hence the number could not be fixed at its proper place. The left side was heavily damaged. The door was not in order. The inside condition was equally bad, except the bench beside the driver's position, none of the chairs had any mattress. The chairs were loose and budging. One window was without glass. The condition of the engine was bad. There was leakage in the waterpump. The pressure of the engine was abnormal. The platform was broken. W. B. R.-3151 the condition of the forepart of this vehicle was not bad. But the hinderpart and the left side were damaged. None of the windows had any glass. Almost all the chairs were loose and budging. Most of them were uncovered, without any mattress. The pressure of the engine was abnormal. The engine required to be repaired immediately. The brake was not working. W. B. R.-2337 the vehicle was very badly handled. The body was completely discoloured. The front was damaged. The starting point, the terminal and the route alignments were written by chalks. Inside the vehicle there was nothing in good condition. The original aluminium sheet of ,the partition between the Driver's cabin and the passenger's seats was replaced by a cardboard. The timber or the plywood of almost all the seats were visible. The roof appeared to have leakage. The pump, the radiator and the battery were all damaged. W. B. R.-3103 the forepart of this vehicle was not as bad as that of other vehicles. The timber or the plywood of almost all the seats were visible. The roof appeared to have leakage. The pump, the radiator and the battery were all damaged. W. B. R.-3103 the forepart of this vehicle was not as bad as that of other vehicles. But the door was broken. The condition inside the vehicle was also bad. Not a single chair had mattress, cushion or covering. Timbers or plywood of the chairs were visible. They were also loose and budging. The condition of the engine was worse. The battery self had become bad. The nozzle, the haulage and the brake required to be repaired, remodeled or replaced. W. B. R.-3127 the upper portion of the front of this vehicle was not bad. But the lower portion was damaged. The door was without any handle. The seats were loose. Three chairs had no mattress. The vehicle did not have those handles which are fixed inside the vehicle for the standing passengers. The condition of the engine was not satisfactory. The pressure was abnormal. Position of the Bank loan of the liability of the owner of the vehicle was effectively recorded by the Special Officer in the manner as follows :- w. B. R.-3324 this vehicle is owned by Sri Alok Samajdar of 34 A, Park Lane, Calcutta-16. Sri Samajdar was financed by the Federal Bank Limited, 11, Clive Row, Calcutta 700 001. The balance outstanding against Sri Samajdar on account of this vehicle on 31-12-1987 was Rs. 1,55,555,35. W. B. R.-4216 this vehicle is owned by Sri Anup Mukherjee of West Kodalia, New Barrackpore North 24-Parganas. The United Bank of India, B. T. Road Branch, Calcutta-2 financed Sri Mukherjee in purchasing this vehicle. The balance outstanding against Sri Mukherjee on account of this vehicle on 29-12-1987 was Rs. 1,52,904. 68. W. B. R.-3151 this vehicle is owned by Sri Santi Ranjan Das of Satin Sen Nagar, New Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas. The State Bank of India, Bagmari Branch, Calcutta financed Sri Das in purchasing this vehicle. The balance outstanding against Sri Das on account of this vehicle was Rs. 2,19,258. 45. It appears from the summons issued on 8-12-1987 that the Bank has already instituted a case being T. S. No. 445 of 1987 against Sri Das in the District Court at Barasat for the recovery of the said money. The balance outstanding against Sri Das on account of this vehicle was Rs. 2,19,258. 45. It appears from the summons issued on 8-12-1987 that the Bank has already instituted a case being T. S. No. 445 of 1987 against Sri Das in the District Court at Barasat for the recovery of the said money. W. B. R.-3103 this vehicle is owned by Sri Satya Hari Mondal of 83, Lakshmi Narayan Road, Calcutta-65 The Allahabad Bank, Ultadanga Branch, Calcutta-4 financed Sri Mondal in purchasing this vehicle. The balance outstanding against Sri Mondal on account of this vehicle on 28-12-1987 was Rs. 76,072. 62 P. W. B. R.-3127 this vehicle is owned by 3 persons, namely, Santi Ranjan Das, Pabak Lal Das and Kalachand Biswas. The Central Bank of India, Bowbazar Branch, Calcutta-12 financed the said persons in purchasing this vehicle. The balance outstanding against the said three persons on account of this vehicle on 31-12-1987 was Rs. 2,18,657. 75 p. W. B. R.-2337 the owner of this vehicle has no bank loan on account of this vehicle. He said that he took loans from his friends and relatives to the extent of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of this vehicle. But he could not produce any document to substantiate his statement. ( 25 ) ON behalf of District Magistrate. , North 24-Parganas, R. T. A. Officer, Barasat, Sub Divisional Officer, Barrackpores, affidavits were filed. The aforesaid respondents are made party as Respondents Nos. 1, 5 and 5a (for short), the said respondents hereafter ). Excepting the affidavits sworn and affirmed on July 21, 1988 (for short the first affidavit hereafter) on behalf of the said respondents in answer to the writ application, all other affidavits in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents are in answer to the applications for further order or direction filed on behalf of the petitioners. The stand of the respondents as taken in the first affidavit after paragraph 11 of the first affidavit is that the said respondent either made a bald denial or stated that the same are matters of records to be dealt with by respondents Nos. 3, 31 to 35. The order of requisition of 7 Mini Buses reported to the respondent No. 1 on April 26, 1987 pursuant to the order of requisition. 3, 31 to 35. The order of requisition of 7 Mini Buses reported to the respondent No. 1 on April 26, 1987 pursuant to the order of requisition. The order of requisition of the remaining 8 Mini Buses of the subject route were sent to the District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas, for service upon the owners of the said Mini Buses. The orders for requisition of the said 7 mini buses as issued by the District Magistrate were made pursuant to the order of Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, contained in the Radiogram Message being No. 5840-MT dated April 23, 1987 and in exercise of powers conferred upon the District Magistrate by the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department, by its notification No. 5517-MT dated April 14, 1987 for maintaining services essential to the commuters of New Barrackpore. That the said orders of requisition dated April 25, 1987 were initially made for a period of 2 months from the respective dates of the aforesaid orders unless released earlier. The owners of the 8 mini buses in respect of the subject route did not comply with the said orders of requisition before the filing of application before this Hon'ble Court. The said respondents denied that the 7 mini buses after possession of their buses were taken by the District Magistrate were allowed to ply by drivers who had not then received driving licences. It is further claimed by the said respondent that the orders of requisition dated April 14, 1987 and April 25, 1987 in respect of the seven mini buses expired on June 24, 1987 and again fresh orders of requisition in respect of the said 7 (seven) mini buses were issued by the District Magistrate on July 8, 1987 for a period of one month from that date. Again orders of requisition in respect of the said 7 (seven) mini buses were issued by the District Magistrate on August 7, 1987, for a further period of one month with effect from August 8, 1987 and thereafter on October 8, 1987 the orders of requisitions of the said 7 (seven) mini buses were issued by the District Magistrate on October 8, 1987 for a further period till the disposal of the variation/ vacation petit on before the Hon'ble High Court. Respondent claimed that there was no time limit beyond which the order of requisition of any particular vehicle under the said Act be made or cannot be continued and in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the requisitioning authority is entitled to issue orders of requisitions for indefinite period in the public interest by issuing fresh orders of requisitions but such orders of requisitions at any one time shall not be for a period exceeding one year and as such, the said orders of requisitions of the said seven mini buses remain still in force validly and legally, that the order of requisition of mini bus No. WER 3324 of Shri Aloke Samajdar, the petitioner No. 14 issued on July 8, 1987 had to be served by affixation at his residence at 34a, Part Lane, Calcutta on July 16, 1987 in the presence of two witnesses. The petitioners claimed that the District Magistrate by his order being Memo No. 758/i. M. V. dated April 26, 1987 entrusted the Chairman of New Barrackpore Municipality with the duties of maintaining the services of regular plying on route the said requisitioned mini buses on behalf of the administration on the ground of administrative expediency. The act of the District Magistrate in exercising his powers under section 3 of the West Bengal Requisitioning of Vehicle Act, 1979 in the facts and circumstances is reasonable, just and warranted. It is also claimed by the said respondent that the District Magistrate did not fail to perform his statutory duties. Respondents denied in particular that the acts and actions of the District Magistrate in requisitioning the vehicles of the petitioners and taking away some of them are not violative of the principles of natural justice and illegal, bad and without any authority of law. In the Affidavit-in-Opposition the said respondents justified the actions taken by the District Magistrate. It is also contended that the continuance of the requisition of the mini buses under the said Act is valid, legal and proper. In the affidavit sworn and affirmed in answer to the application for order/orders and/or direction/directions by Aloke Samajdar on November 18, 1987, respondents claimed as follows. ( 26 ) THE outstanding balance of arrear compensation up to 31st December, 1988 would be Rs. In the affidavit sworn and affirmed in answer to the application for order/orders and/or direction/directions by Aloke Samajdar on November 18, 1987, respondents claimed as follows. ( 26 ) THE outstanding balance of arrear compensation up to 31st December, 1988 would be Rs. 1,52,428/- only except the cost of repairs which are to be borne by the owners and not Rs. 10,62,304/- payable by the requisitioning authority. The said respondent also denied all the averments that the District Magistrate did not comply with the orders passed by this court on May 12, 1987, May 19, 1987 and July 6, 1987. The Hon'ble Court would not direct to the respondent authorities to release mini buses requisitioned by respondent No. 1 on April 25, 1987 and to make payment on the basis of the bills submitted by the operators of the said mini buses. Respondents claimed that if the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the amount of compensation as stated above, they would be directed to present individual application to the Appropriate Authority as laid down in the said Act and the aforesaid balance of compensation of Rs. 1,52,428 only except cost of repairs to be borne by the owners up to December 31, 1988 would be paid by the requisitioning authority to the owners of the said seven mini buses by December, 31 1989 if all the fifteen mini buses were plied from New Barrackpore stand by the writ petitioners on the basis of the settlement between the owners and the Workers' Union. The said writ petition may be kept pending in the Hon'ble Court till December 31, 1989. The order of requisition was served upon all the operators of the subject route. Respondents claimed that said orders of requisition of the District Magistrate were made pursuant to the order of the Transport authorities of the Government of West Bengal contained in Radiogram Message being 5840wt dated April 23, 1987 and in exercise of powers conferred upon the District Magistrate by the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department by its notification No. 5517-WT dated April 14, 1987 for maintaining services essential to the commuters of New Barrackpore. The orders of the said requisition were for public interest. While dealing with the appeal being preferred being No. F. M. A. T. No. 49 of 1988 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on February 1, 1988 when their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. The orders of the said requisition were for public interest. While dealing with the appeal being preferred being No. F. M. A. T. No. 49 of 1988 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on February 1, 1988 when their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Mukherjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Sekhar Ganguly disposed the appeal. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that Section 8 of the said Act provides that the payment of additional compensation in service case, if during the period of requisition a vehicle requisitioned under Section 3 of the said Act, is damaged otherwise than by normal wear and tear or lost and if such damage or loss to the vehicle is not insured there shall be paid to the person entitled to compensation under Section 4 of the said Act and additional compensation to the extent of damage or loss suffered as may be determined by the State Government in such manner as may be prescribed. The petitioners further pin pointed that the seven vehicles suffered damages and huge liability. The petitioners emphatically denied that there is no time limit for requisition of mini buses under the said Act. The petitioners asserted that the extension of the period of requisition in the facts of case cannot be made nor continued. In view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the requisitioning authority is not entitled to issue orders of requisition for an indefinite period in the public interest by issuing fresh orders of requisitions at any one time which shall not be for a period exceeding one year and as such the said order of requisition of the said seven mini buses were not still in force validly and legally, as alleged. The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders of the requisitions issued under the said Act. ( 27 ) ON October 8, 1987 the District Magistrate issued a requisition memo being No. 1941 (7) (M. V) to the petitioners whereby it was pointed out that he was of opinion that the vehicle mentioned in schedule was still needed for maintaining supplies and service essential to the life of the community of New Barrackpore. It was also pointed out that the earlier requisition order No. 1815 (7) MV dated September 7, 1987 required extension if requisition was to continue. It was also pointed out that the earlier requisition order No. 1815 (7) MV dated September 7, 1987 required extension if requisition was to continue. It was also pointed out that there was an order of the Hon'ble High Court dated September 17, 1987 to release the buses but the Hon'ble Division Bench had given leave on September 25, 1987 to move the Trial Court for variation and/or vacation of the earlier order within one week after a long vacation. ( 28 ) IT was also pointed out by the said memo dated October 8, 1987 that in exercise of power/conferred by Section 3 of the said Act read with Notification No. 5517-WT dated April 14, 1987 of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, the District Magistrate extended the period of requisition of the vehicles described in the memo for a further period till disposal of the variation, vacation petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioners filed an application for further order/orders and/or direction? directions praying for directions upon the District Magistrate not to give any effect or to take step on the basis of the purported memo being No. 1944 (7) MB dated October 8, 1987 and also to release the requisitioned vehicles and allow the operators of the said vehicles to ply their mini buses from Dum Dum Airport to National Library and also praying for direction upon the District Magistrate to make payment of the respective bills submitted by the operators of the requisitioned vehicles up to the period May 2, 1988. From a perusal of the report of the Special Officer, it appears that the cost of damages of each of the vehicle is as follows :- wbr 3127 rs. 50,000/- wbr 3188 rs. 35,000/- wbr 3324 rs. 45,000/- wbr 3103 rs. 70,000/- wbr 3151 rs. 52,000/- ( 29 ) THE District Magistrate by an order No 758/i. M. V. dated April 26,1987 entrusted the Chairman of the New Barrackpore Municipality with the duties of maintaining of the services of regular plying of the said requisitioned mini buses on behalf of the administration for administrative expediency and the parrot like chanting of provisions as contained in the order of requisition. ( 30 ) IN one of the affidavits-in-reply to the affidavit in opposition filed in answer to the application when application for order or orders sworn and affirmed on February 6, 1989, the writ petitioners while reiterating their claim in an effective manner claimed the aforesaid amount of compensation up to January 1989 as per bill submitted by the operator of their requisitioned mini buses under the said Act before the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North) was Rs. 19,38,672. Out of such amount, the said respondents paid a sum of Rs. 6,98,000 in accordance with the order passed by this Court. The balance amount of compensation payable up to January 31,1989 would be Rs. 12,40,692. The said respondents are required to pay the said amount to the petitioners. The basis of the calculation of Rs. 1,52,428 has been challenged by the writ petitioners on the ground that such calculation is without foundation. Requisition of the mini buses was effected under the said Act and the continuance of the term of the requisition of mini buses under the said Act was made from time to time by the District Magistrate and last of such continuance was done in terms of the order passed by the concerned authority by an order dated October 8, 1987 without any application being filed on behalf of the respondents for variation. ( 31 ) IT was further claimed that it is the bounden duty of the said respondents to determine the payment the balance arrears of compensation and damages in respect of requisition of mini buses for the period covered by requisition. On the basis of fares or rates prevailing in locality for hire of such Vehicles as per bill submitted by the operators of the requisitioned mini buses under Sections 4 and 8 of the said Act. The petitioners emphatically denied the stand of the said respondents that this Court should not de-requisition the mini buses of the subject route and bifurcated route being No. 175/1 on the terms and conditions as referred to in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on January 30, 1989. The said terms and conditions are as follows:- (A) The matter and mode of appointment and distribution of duties as was prevailing before orders of requisition were made would be followed by the owners of the said fifteen mini buses. The said terms and conditions are as follows:- (A) The matter and mode of appointment and distribution of duties as was prevailing before orders of requisition were made would be followed by the owners of the said fifteen mini buses. (B) All the employees who were on duty prior to 8th April 1987 would be allowed to do their duties. (C) All the fifteen mini buses are to depart from New Barrackpore stand and if any one of the said fifteen mini buses is required to depart from Barasat, the same shall be decided upon after discussion and settlement with the New Barrackpore Mini Bus Workers' Union and in that event, permits for 10 more mini buses would be issued by the R. T. A. , Calcutta to the intending operators following the rules for issuance of permanent permits for mini buses and till such additional 10 permanent permits are issued, 10 temporary permits would be issued by the R. T. A. , Calcutta immediately pending issuance of 10 permanent permits on Routes Nos. 175 and 175/1". ( 32 ) IT is effectively reasserted by the writ petitioners that in the event, the requisitioned Mini buses are the operators of mini buses in respect of the subject route will ply from New Barrackpore to National library and Barasat to High Court in terms of and on the basis of the condition as engrafted in the permits. That the said respondent being an executive authority cannot act according to whims of any Union or any party nor the executive authority exercising powers under the provisions of the said Act is competent to direct the writ petitioner to discuss and settle with the workers' Union. It further claimed that the said respondents requisitioned 15 mini buses on the basis of pressure exerted upon the statutory functionaries and the concerned Ministers. The writ petitioners further claimed that in the event of any dispute between the Workers' Union and the writ petitioners exist, such dispute can only be raised before the appropriate forum not before the District Magistrate and the R. T. O. or Sub Divisional Office. ( 33 ) IT is appropriate for this Court to refer now to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3, and 4 sworn and affirmed by Sabyasachi Rakshit on July 17, 1987. ( 33 ) IT is appropriate for this Court to refer now to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3, and 4 sworn and affirmed by Sabyasachi Rakshit on July 17, 1987. The stand of the R. T. A. as would appear from the said affidavit in opposition is summed up as follows:-THE R. T. A. received representation from the petitioners and the said representation was duly forwarded to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Public/ Vehicle Department to intervene and the meeting held at the instance of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Public Vehicles Department. But the said meeting yielded no result due to the rigid attitude taken by the parties attended in the said meeting at that relevant time. The deponent of the said affidavit further claimed that R. T. A. is not armed with an apparatus for maintaining law and order and also protecting the operators of Mini Buses from any onslaught from any quarter. It is further claimed by the R. T. A. that it has no such machinery for maintaining law and order at his disposal in order to maintain normalcy of the route in question and accordingly, the deponent of the said affidavit asked the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority for relief. The letter as contained in Annexures H and I to the writ application was sent to the petitioners in pursuance of a decision of the respondent No. 3 and the said decision of the respondent No. 3 was adopted by the respondent No. 3 in order to render better services to the travelling public and the said decision was also adopted in the interest of the public in general in so far as the said route in question is concerned. The Statutory authority took up the stand that it being the Statutory Authority is bound to act statutorily and the show cause notice was issued by reason of the non-plying of the mini buses by the petitioners on the subject route for the purpose of taking appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions as contained in the Act, 1939. It was further claimed by the R. T. A. that they are legally entitled to take appropriate steps against the petitioners on their failure to ply the vehicle on the basis of valid permit in the interest of the travelling public. It was further claimed by the R. T. A. that they are legally entitled to take appropriate steps against the petitioners on their failure to ply the vehicle on the basis of valid permit in the interest of the travelling public. The R. T. A. while dealing with the allegations regarding the non-performance of the statutory duty recorded that the R. T. A. tried their best in all respect to normalise the route in question in the interest of travelling public. The show cause notices as claimed by the R. T. A. were issued in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1939, before the cancellation of permits granted to the petitioners. The permits are issued for authorising the owners to ply their vehicles on the route in question in order to carry the passengers so as to render service to the public in general. In the event, permit holders failed to ply their vehicles after obtaining the permits that would cause enormous sufferings to the travelling public keeping in view of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Show cause notices were issued for taking appropriate steps in the matter. ( 34 ) NO affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of (a) the Officer-in-Charge, Khardah Police Station (b) the Superintendent of Police North 24-Parganas. Despite the effective pleadings as would appear from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ applications in regard to the action of New Barrackpore Municipality and the Chairman of New Barrackpore Municipality no answer nor any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the said respondent No. 8. ( 35 ) THE petitioner after advancing oral submission filed written submissions reiterating the serious challenge to the show cause notice under Section 60 of the said Act, 1939, the orders by the R. T. A. for cancellation of permit issued under Section 3 of the said Act as also by the District Magistrate on the ground of invalidity, illegality and impropriety. The written submissions point at the salient aspects in the manner following.- (I) By Memo No. 1941 (7) MV (i) dated October, 8 1987 issued by the District Magistrate is invalid and unwarranted as the said respondents did not make any application for variation. The said extension of the period of requisition of the seven mini buses was merited to be declared as illegal. The said extension of the period of requisition of the seven mini buses was merited to be declared as illegal. (II) The impugned order dated April 26, 1987 initially made for a period of two months in exercise of powers of two months by the District Magistrate and the compensation for the requisition of the vehicles be paid as provided in the said Act. ( 36 ) IT is appropriate for this Court at this stage to refer to certain documents which are available in the records produced by Mr. J. N. Halder, learned Advocate appearing for the requisitioning authority, before this Court. At the time of hearing Mr. Halder showed his fairness by producing the records of this case. The attention of Mr. Halder was drawn to certain documents available in the records. I deam it fit and proper to refer to and rely on these documents which are necessary for the determination of the issues involved in this application. (A) Minutes of an emergent meeting of the Commissioners of New Barrackpore Municipality held on April 26, 1987 at 8 a. m. is quoted below :- "shri M. Banerjee, Chairman presided over the meeting. The present situation of Mini Buses under Route No. 175 created by the owners was discussed. The agenda of this meeting was the emergency arising out of non-plying of Mini Buses under route No. 175. Further, there was request from R. T. O. Barasat and the Executive Magistrate representing District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (N) to come out to assist the general administration by playing an important role in managing operation of the Mini buses in the context of deliberate non-co-operation of the owners of Mini Buses. The entire situation was discussed threadbare and particularly the inconvenience of the daily passengers. It was resolved that with proper co-operation with the administration, the Mini Buses requisitioned by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (N) will be provided for the passengers and the tickets will be supplied by the New Barrackpore Municipality. The daily records and the collection and expenditure will be maintained in this office. It was further resolved that from to-day i. e. April 26, 1987 Sri N. Karmakar and Shri N. Banerjee, Commissioners of this Municipality will sign on the tickets and the common seal of the Municipality will have to be used on the tickets for using the requisitioned mini buses. Shri B. Singha Choudhury. It was further resolved that from to-day i. e. April 26, 1987 Sri N. Karmakar and Shri N. Banerjee, Commissioners of this Municipality will sign on the tickets and the common seal of the Municipality will have to be used on the tickets for using the requisitioned mini buses. Shri B. Singha Choudhury. Deputy Accountant of this Municipality is authorised to receive all sale proceeds of Mini buses from the conductors and maintain proper account in this regard. This arrangement shall continue until further communication from D. Muzumdar whose instruction and advice the present steps have been taken. "it appears that the Finance Minister, Transport Minister and Chief Minister, all are taken into consultation before the orders of requisition were passed. Even the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality held consultation as regards plying of vehicles. (b) District Magistrate issued a Memo No. 1170/ MV dated 8th July, 1987 addressed to the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality inter alia to the following effect"in continuation of this office Memo No. 758/1mv dated April 26, 1987 he is entrusted with the duties of maintaining the service of regular plying of 7 mini buses on Route No. 175 on behalf of the Administration. He is to look after the operational matters. In case of any difficulties if arise he is requested to seek advice of R. T. A. North 24parganas, Barasat. Daily sale proceeds to be deposited in a Bank under a separate account maintained for this purpose like previous occasion. " (C) In another reference the District Magistrate 24-Parganas (N) by Memo dated 29th September, 1987 informed the Secretary, Transport Department in the following manner : "in continuation of the above I write to invite your special attention to the enclosed copy of High Court's Order dated 25-9-87 directing that Rs. 1 lac be placed with the High Court without delay. As explained earlier an allotment of Rs. 2 lacs would be necessary to cover requisition expenses. Further, damaged vehicles will cease plying unless repaired. At present, three Mini buses require repair estimated at Rs. 40,951/- as assessed by our MVI (Technical ). In fact, it would be desirable to release damaged buses, although, of course, we will have to pay compensation nevertheless. Supervision of repairs and replacement of parts will result in various complications for which Govt. clearance is required. At present, three Mini buses require repair estimated at Rs. 40,951/- as assessed by our MVI (Technical ). In fact, it would be desirable to release damaged buses, although, of course, we will have to pay compensation nevertheless. Supervision of repairs and replacement of parts will result in various complications for which Govt. clearance is required. If any financial aspects require clarification to Finance Department I would request you to kindly dispose of the same on war footing, but the matter of allotment which has been pending since requisition on Govt. instruction was effected in April 1987, would indicate that the predicament of this office is perhaps not appreciated at Writers'. The Rules under which the requisitioning authority is expected to function have not been sent, and an impression may arise in Court that this requisition although initiated by Govt. is not found sufficiently important by Transport Department to warrant attention, and that the District Magistrate is proceeding arbitrarily without Rules framed for guidance. The absence of Govt. instructions or response is severely impending proceeding of this matter and I would request your kind and personal attention. I intend to de-requisition the Buses if funds are not placed by 10th October, 1987 for deposit with High Court and for repairs. I would request you to kindly issue instruction and allotment without further delay. Due to the lack of response without allotment so far I am also keeping Chief Secretary informed. A copy of this letter will be placed before the High Court if no allotment is received. "it will appear that the requisition of the vehicles was made on the basis of a dispute raised by the concerned workers and their leaders. The requisition was not in public interest but it was effected to satisfy the demands of the workers. Reference may be made to Memo dated 29th July, 1987. The said letter was also sent to the Ministers Department of Transport, Department of Finance. It is 'also to be noted how the requisition of the Mini Buses could be made in the absence of any rules regulating the mode or manner in which the said requisition could be continued. Reference may be made to Memo dated 29th July, 1987. The said letter was also sent to the Ministers Department of Transport, Department of Finance. It is 'also to be noted how the requisition of the Mini Buses could be made in the absence of any rules regulating the mode or manner in which the said requisition could be continued. Even the District Magistrate in her letter dated September 29, 1987 indicated that an impression may arise in Court that this requisition although initiated by Government is not found sufficiently important by Transport Department to warrant attention and the District Magistrate is proceeding arbitrarily, without Rules framed for guidance. It is, therefore, essential that the Rules under which the requisitioning authority is required to function have not been framed. (D) Mrs. K. Choudhuri, District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas by letter No. 6261/ Con. XVI-I/87 (P) dated 1st October, 1987 informed the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality inter alia to the following effect: "i am to inform you that Govt. in the Department of Transport has been requested vide Memos Nos. : 1) C/4438/ Con. dated 7-7-87 2) C/5256/ Con. dated 12-8-87 3) C/5697/ Con. dated 31-8-87 4) C/6089/ Con. dated 21-9-87 5) C/6209/ Con. dated 28-9-87 6) C/6258/ Con. dated 29-9-87 to place allotment for requisition charges of the Mini Buses on Route No. 175, but no allotment has yet been received. The High Court has directed that Rs. 2 lac be deposited in connection with the pending appeal and a copy of the order dated 25-9-87 is enclosed. It is hereby informed that the undersigned proposes to de-requisition the buses and to give direction for release on 10-10-87 if no allotment is received by then. This information may please be conveyed to the authorities. As the Chairman is fully aware, that the Mini Buses were requisitioned on direction from above and all efforts were made by this office to honour such direction. However, without any financial allotment from April 1987 when the buses were requisitioned and consequent non-payment of hire charges, a situation has arisen where the High Court has directed to deposit of Rs. 1 lac. Judging from the long delay already incurred, it is very unlikely that allotment will be received by 10-10-87. As such Chairman is requested to prepare for release of Mini Buses on 10-10-87 and also to communicate this information to such quarters as deemed fit. 1 lac. Judging from the long delay already incurred, it is very unlikely that allotment will be received by 10-10-87. As such Chairman is requested to prepare for release of Mini Buses on 10-10-87 and also to communicate this information to such quarters as deemed fit. It may be appreciated that derequisition at this stage will undoubtedly be embarrassing not only for the Municipality and District Administration but also for Government, the u/s (sic) has no choice in this matter and this situation has been created entirely by lack of allotment for payment of hire charges. It is also to be noted that since payment will have to be made per bus at Rs. 288/- (or thereabouts) per day from the date of requisition the amount due will exceed Rs. 1 lac, although to begin with we are required to deposit this amount only. Lastly, I am to request you to send a full statement of the present earnings from the Mini buses, currently with you, indicating receipts and payments. This may please be sent by 7-10-1987 positively. "from the above reference it will appear that the Mini buses were requisitioned on directions from above. All efforts were made by the District Magistrate. Chairman was also requested to prepare for the release of the Mini Buses D. M. further added that the payment will have to be made per bus @ Rs. 288/- per day from the date of requisition. (E) Shri K. Choudhuri, District Magistrate sent a Memo No. 6436/1 dated 15th October, 1987 to Shri S. C. Choudhury, Deputy Secretary, Transport Department in the manner following:- "kindly recollect our discussion a couple of days back regarding the High Court case pertaining to route No. 175. As discussed we are keeping in close touch with the State advocate but, as you know, the various aspects of the case require the best possible presentation. Our requisition having been in somewhat experimental form, without rules, may run into heavy weather, particularly in view of our delay in payment of requisition charges. As already indicated in my letter No. C/6089/con. dated 21-9-87 to Transport Secretary it is essential to ensure our case is properly presented before the High Court and that the State Advocate is guided by the Advocate-General or such counsel as Government deems fit, Government decision in this matter may kindly be communicated early. As already indicated in my letter No. C/6089/con. dated 21-9-87 to Transport Secretary it is essential to ensure our case is properly presented before the High Court and that the State Advocate is guided by the Advocate-General or such counsel as Government deems fit, Government decision in this matter may kindly be communicated early. The accounts called for by Transport Department are being sent separately. In the meantime I would request you too kindly also process the matter of prescribing rates for payment of requisition charges. Our proposal is that we may pay at the election rate. In conclusion I would thank you for your assistance in procuring the allotment in a timely fashion. "for the purpose of preparation of the bill of hire charges or for the following aspects have to be taken into considerationi) Full day charges are to be allowed for a calendar day or for duties for 8 hours or more. Half-day charges may be allowed to a vehicle giving more than 4 hours of services in a day. II) Tiffin allowances as disbursed to the workers of the liquidation of vehicles in accordance with the necessary Government order issued from the Home (CIE) Department or the Panchayat Department or otherwise, should not be deducted from the bill submitted to the owner of the requisitioned vehicle. III) Kilometer run by a vehicle should include Kilometer from carriage to place of reporting and back, and in case of vehicles requisitioned through the Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta, such vehicles run from P. V. D. to the reporting station and back should be taken into consideration. Either fuel may be supplied or cost of fuel may be paid by hiring/requisitioning authority in all cases according to convenience and practicability. "according to the above Govt. order the rate prescribed against Serial No. 10 for the Mini Buses is Rs. 325/- per diem. (F) Memo No. 2076-WT/3m-19/87 dated February, 1988 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of West Bengal was addressed to (1) The Secretary, Local Government and Urban Development, (2) The Director, Public Vehicles Department, (3) The District Magistrate, North 24parganas, (4) The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, (5) Sub-Divisional Officer, (6) The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Lalbazar etc. It will appear from the said letter that in modification of the Department Order No. 6320w/wt/7b-21 dated 12th June, 1985 read with the G. O. Nos. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Lalbazar etc. It will appear from the said letter that in modification of the Department Order No. 6320w/wt/7b-21 dated 12th June, 1985 read with the G. O. Nos. 1388/wt/te21/82 dated 17th July, 1986 and No. 3110/ WT/3m-19/87 dated the 5th March, 1987 on the subject of the rates of charges for hire/compensation in respect of vehicles to be hired requisitioned. The concerned authority informed ceiling of the hire charges in respect of different class of motor vehicles requisitioned in connection with the election duties are as follows:- description of Vehicles rate 1 to 9. . . . . 10. Mini Bus rs. 325/- per diem plus fuel at the rate of 3. 5 KM per litre. 11. Ordinary bus (stage carriage ). . . . 12. Delux Bus. . . . (g) The District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas sent a telegram to the Secretary, Transport Department bearing No. 1029, dated 27-5-1988 with copy to O. C. Barasat P. S. (Wireless) who was directed to arrange to transmit the following message through R. T. O. as follows:- "reference Case No. 4396-WT of 1987, New Barrackpore Mini Bus Owners' Association v. D. M. North 24-Parganas and others. The case will come up in the list of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohitesh Majumder on 30-5-88. Almost seven requisitioned buses are now lying idle due to damages caused to them and huge amount of compensation are to be paid to the owners. Learned State Advocate Shri J. N. Haldar wants opinion of the Transport Department before the hearing of the case on 30-5-88 regarding release of the Mini buses. Instruction may kindly be sent direct to the State Advocate by 1. 30 a. m. on 30-5-88. "it is necessary for this Court to place on record that the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (N) informed the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality in the manner following:-"this is to state that apart from the compulsory payment deposited with the High Court no allotment has been received from Government, or rules prescribed under the Act for running the requisitioned Mini buses, or the rate of payment indicated. Meanwhile even Rs. 51 lakhs arrear bills have accumulated. This constitutes gross financial impropriety when a DM incurring expenditure without the clearance of Finance Department. The Transport Department has verbally indicated that their budget does not have provision for such payment. Meanwhile even Rs. 51 lakhs arrear bills have accumulated. This constitutes gross financial impropriety when a DM incurring expenditure without the clearance of Finance Department. The Transport Department has verbally indicated that their budget does not have provision for such payment. As such buses which require major repairs will be released forthwith, and no expenditure will henceforth be incurred on maintenance other than routine. As and when a particular bus requires major repairs, details of the same should be sent to the undersigned for issuing release order. Receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged as proper record is required to be kept for production before the High Court at the time of hearing. Needless to say, failure to make periodic payment to the owners already constitutes a violation of their right to payment for services extracted from the Mini buses. "it would further appear that the Chairman, New Barrackpore, Municipality or the Commissioners for New Barrackpore Municipality were allowed to run the vehicle and to maintain a statement of income and expenditure and the said Chairman, submitted the statement of such income and expenditure in connection with Mini buses in Route No. 175 from New Barrackpore Municipality. It is also to be noted that the concerned authority recorded the cost of repairs and replacements in respect of the requisitioned Mini buses. (H) It would appear that the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (N) sent a memo being No. 1223/ MV dated June 20, 1988 to the Secretary, Transport Department, informing him inter alia to the following effect "kindly refer to D. O. Letter No. C1826/ Con. XVI-I (P) dated 11th April, 1988, under which the proposal for release of 7 (seven) requisitioned mini buses was given to avoid further Government financial inability. At present only 4 buses are plying. On 26-4-87 7 (seven) buses were requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining supplies and service essential to the life of the community of New Barrackpore. With the non-plying of 3 (three) buses the purposes of requisitioning of the buses is not being served fully. On the other hand, gradually Govt. liabilities are accumulating. The present liabilities are over Rs. 12 lacs in terms of compensation to the bus owners together with an additional cost of repairing the vehicles to the tune of Rs. 2,35,625/- which add up to a total of Rs. 14,42,231/ -. On the other hand, gradually Govt. liabilities are accumulating. The present liabilities are over Rs. 12 lacs in terms of compensation to the bus owners together with an additional cost of repairing the vehicles to the tune of Rs. 2,35,625/- which add up to a total of Rs. 14,42,231/ -. Under the circumstances stated above, it may please be instructed whether the requisition should continue. In any case the required fund for liquidating the existing liability should be placed urgently so as to obviate the constant pressure from the operators' and the workers for payment of the compensation and for repair of the vehicles respectively. If it is decided to continue the requisition further fund should be placed immediately for meeting the liabilities quickly without which the District Administration has to constantly face great difficulties. " (i) It appears from the materials on record particularly at page 224 of file No. IX 2/ 88 signed by the concerned officer on 27-5-1988 that the mini buses bearing Nos. WBR-3103, WBR-2337, WBR-4216, WBR-3324 and WBR-3127 were duly examined. The other two vehicles bearing Nos. WBR-3188 and WBR-3151 could not be examined. It reveals from the examination, the condition of the body, paint, seats, cushions, tyres and other components are very wretched. To make the aforesaid vehicles in perfect running condition, the vehicles are to be repaired thoroughly. The approximate cost of repairs/replacements are furnished below against each of the vehicles:- registration No. of mini buses. Approximate cost of repairs/ replacements. 1. WBR-2337 rs. 47,550. 00 2. WBR-3103 rs. 52,725. 00 3. WBR-4216 rs. 55,350. 00 4. WBR-3324 rs. 45,999. 00 5. WBR-3127 rs. 35,000. 00type copy of the same is kept on record. (J) On June 28, 1988 the District Magistrate sent a memo being No. 1223/ MV to Shri N. Gupta, I. A. S. , Secretary, Transport Department in the manner following:- "kindly refer to D. O. No. C 1826/com. XVI-I (P) dated April 11,1988. Under which the proposal for release of 7 (seven) requisitioned mini buses was given to avoid further Government financial liability. At present only 4 (four) buses are plying. On 26-4-1987, 7 (seven) buses were requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining supplies and service essential to the life of the community of New Barrackpore. With the non-plying of 3 (three) buses the purpose of requisitioning of the buses is not being served fully. At present only 4 (four) buses are plying. On 26-4-1987, 7 (seven) buses were requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining supplies and service essential to the life of the community of New Barrackpore. With the non-plying of 3 (three) buses the purpose of requisitioning of the buses is not being served fully. On the other hand, gradually Government liabilities are accumulating. The present liabilities are over Rs. 12,00,000/- in terms of compensation to the bus owners together with an additional cost of repairing the vehicles to the tune of Rs. 2,35,625/- which add up to a total of Rs. 14,42,231/ -. Under the circumstances stated above, it may please be instructed whether the requisition should continue. In any case, the required fund for liquidating the existing liability should be placed urgently so as to obviate the constant pressure from the operators and the working for payment of the compensation and for repair of the vehicles respectively. If it is decided to continue the requisition for further fund it should be placed immediately for meeting the liabilities quickly without which the District Administration has to constantly face great difficulties. " (j) Calculation sheet as would appear in para 183 of the file is quoted below:-"the owners of the seven requisitioned mini buses of route No. 175 have submitted part bills (copy as annexure) for Rs. 31,400/- for each mini bus for the period from 3rd November, 1987 to 15th January, 1988 for 75 days (actually 74 days ). As per rate of General Election 1987 each minibus is to be paid Rs. 288/- per day. Thus the total amount for 74 days comes to Rs. 21,313 (Rs. 288 x 74 days ). As regards the first bill (Annexure II) it may kindly be noted that instruction in this regard has already been solicited from Transport Department by this office memo No. 2380 IV dated 25th Nov. , 1987. In the first bill each registered owner claimed Rs. 75,780/- for each vehicle for the period from April 26, 1987 to November 2, 1987 i. e. 191 days. As per Election rate each vehicle is to be paid Rs. 288/- per day which comes to Rs. 288 x 191 - Rs. 55,008/ -. In this connection, it may be mentioned that while daily compensation as per the above rate is paid by Government the repairing costs etc. are borne by the respective owners. As per Election rate each vehicle is to be paid Rs. 288/- per day which comes to Rs. 288 x 191 - Rs. 55,008/ -. In this connection, it may be mentioned that while daily compensation as per the above rate is paid by Government the repairing costs etc. are borne by the respective owners. Up till January 20, 1988 the following repairing expenses have been incurred. (I) Wages of staff rs. 1,06,931. 95 (II) Salary of Starter rs. 5,100. 00 (III) Repairing of buses Rs. 71,603. 29 (IV) Ad hoc payment Rs. 49,000. 00 to (1) to bus owners (iv)rs. 49,000. 00 (V) Bonus to staff Rs. 14,000. 00 (V) Printing cost of Bus tickets. Rs. 1,894. 28total: rs. 2,97,529. 52if we follow election procedure, these amounts will be deducted. Calculation A total days (191 plus 74) 265 from April 26, 1987 to January, 15, 1988: at the election rate @ Rs. 288/- x 265 days. . Rs. 76,320/- total claim for 7 vehicles @ Rs. 76,320/- x 7 = 34,240/- already paid. . . . . Rs. 2,97,529. 52 Balance dues 2,36,710. 00 Calculation B if the High Court upholds the rate put forward by the owners- We are to pay. . . Claim put forward by the Bus owners. . . Rs. 7,50,260. 00 We have already paid a sum Rs. 2,97,525. 00 Due Rs. 4,52,731. 00 calculation C if High Court does not allow deduction we are to pay rs. 7,50,260. 00 in full. " chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality sent a letter being No. 336/1984/87 addressed to the District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas together with statement of income and expenditure of Mini bus on route No. 175 from New Barrackpore Municipality for favour of information and n. a. INCOME EXPENDITURE Sale proceeds from Bus No 3151 rs. 48,790. 20 diesel and Bobile, tyre, rent and tiffin. . Rs. 12,38,573. 81 no 4216 rs. 29,179. 75 bus repair. . Rs. 35,754. 55no 3188 rs. 14,195. 70 wages and staff. . Rs. 64,569. 63 No 3103 rs. 44,036. 20 salary of Starter. . Rs. 3,300. 00 no 3324 rs. 71,025. 10 ad hoc payment to Bus owners. . Rs. 49,000. 00 no 2337 rs. 48,236. 00 bonus for staff for 1987 @ Rs. 1900 per bus. . Rs. 13,300. 00 Printing cost of ticket. . Rs. 742. 70 Misc. expenses. . Rs. 297. 00 balance at Bank Rs. 20,877. . Rs. 3,300. 00 no 3324 rs. 71,025. 10 ad hoc payment to Bus owners. . Rs. 49,000. 00 no 2337 rs. 48,236. 00 bonus for staff for 1987 @ Rs. 1900 per bus. . Rs. 13,300. 00 Printing cost of ticket. . Rs. 742. 70 Misc. expenses. . Rs. 297. 00 balance at Bank Rs. 20,877. 70 Rs. 3,26,415. 55 Rs. 3,26,415. 55 ( 37 ) BEFORE dealing with this case it will be appropriate for this Court to record the facts indicated below. On June 23, 1989 leave was granted to the petitioners for addition of State as one of the respondents. Copy of the writ petition as also the copy of Supplementary affidavit were directed to serve upon Mr. J. N. Halder, the learned Advocate on behalf of respondents. Direction for affidavit-in-opposition within 7 days from June 23, 1989 and the affidavit-in-reply within 3 days thereafter were passed. On July 18, 1989 again the matter was placed for hearing before this Court when Mr. J. N. Halder, the learned Advocate did not file the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of State respondents. Mr. Deb Roy, the learned Advocate for the second time served a copy of the writ application upon the State respondents i. e. through the Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta and the affidavit of service was also filed. On August 3, 1989 again the matter was taken up for hearing when no one appeared for the State. Copy of the writ application was served upon Mr. Halder for the purpose of enabling him to appear on behalf of the State but the did not choose to appear on the date fixed. A copy of the writ application for the second time was served upon the State through the Secretary, Department of Home (Transport ). The Court has passed direction upon the State to file affidavit-in-opposition and the State was duly served with the copy of writ application. Even then no affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State. ( 38 ) THE first point falls for consideration as to whether orders of requisition under the Requisition of Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short the said Act hereinafter) is valid, legal and proper. Before considering this point, it is fit and proper to record the relevant provisions of Ss. 3, 9 and 14 of the said Act. ( 38 ) THE first point falls for consideration as to whether orders of requisition under the Requisition of Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short the said Act hereinafter) is valid, legal and proper. Before considering this point, it is fit and proper to record the relevant provisions of Ss. 3, 9 and 14 of the said Act. The said sections are quoted below :-"section 3 : Requisitioning of vehicles for public purpose - (i) If the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community it may by order in writing, requisition any vehicle for such period as may be mentioned therein. , but not exceeding one year, and make such further orders as may appear to it to be necessary and expedient in connection with the requisition. (ii) An order of requisitioning under sub-sec. (1) shall be served on the person deemed by the State Government to be the owner of the vehicle or, if at the time of requisitioning the vehicle is in possession of a person other than the owner, than on such person as well as on the owner, (iii) Any vehicle requisitioned under sub-section (1) shall vest in the State Government for the period of the requisition and the State Government may use or deal with in such manner may appear to it to be expedient;9. Delegation of functions of the State Government. The State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on the State Government by any of the provisions except S. 14 of the said Act shall, under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged by such officer or class of officers as may be specified. 14. Power of State Government to make rules- the State Government may make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act. " ( 39 ) IT appears from the orders of requisition of Mini buses passed by the State Government that the dispute between the petitioners and the Workmen gave rise to issue of show cause notice under S. 60 of Act, 1939 and erstwhile Minister Radhika Ranjan Banerjee intervened in the matter. " ( 39 ) IT appears from the orders of requisition of Mini buses passed by the State Government that the dispute between the petitioners and the Workmen gave rise to issue of show cause notice under S. 60 of Act, 1939 and erstwhile Minister Radhika Ranjan Banerjee intervened in the matter. ( 40 ) DURING the pendency of the said show cause notice, the District Magistrate as authorised by the State Govt. was appointed as the Requisitioning Authority. The vehicles were requisitioned pursuant to Radiogram dt. September 23, 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal. ( 41 ) FROM a reference to the said Radiogram dated 23rd September, 1987 it appears that the District Magistrate passed the order of requisition on the basis of the dictate of the Transport Minister under authority given to the District Magistrate being Notification No. 5817 WT dated April 14, 1987. The Finance Minister and the Chief Minister duly accorded approval of the arrangement. The District Magistrate did not form an independent opinion. The orders of requisition were, thus, passed only at the dictates of the Transport Minister. The orders were challenged on the ground of doctrine of dictation and/or surrender. The State Government did not make Rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Act. In absence of said Rules, the orders, thus, passed by the State Govt. authorising the District Magistrate to act as the Requisitioning Authority and subsequent dictate of the concerned Ministers to requisition the vehicles have been seriously assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 42 ) THE petitioner challenged the said orders being infected with the doctrine of dictation. The District Magistrate did not act independently, nor did he apply his mind. Reference made by the learned Counsel to the decisions of this Court in case of Jagannath Mondal v. State of West Bengal reported in (1989) 1 Cal HN 39. The Supreme Court in case of Hukum Chand v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC 789 . Reference made by the learned Counsel to the decisions of this Court in case of Jagannath Mondal v. State of West Bengal reported in (1989) 1 Cal HN 39. The Supreme Court in case of Hukum Chand v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC 789 . In support of the contention, the Supreme Court in Hukum Chand's case in dealing with the exercise of powers under S. 5 (1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 laid down three propositions :- (I) the occurrence of a public emergency is the sine quo non for the exercise of power under this section; (II) the Government or the authority concerned must record its satisfaction as to the existence of such an emergency; and (III) the existence of the emergency which is a pre-requisite for the exercise of power under this section, must be a "public emergency" and not any other kind of emergency. ( 43 ) AFTER referring to the said decisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seriously commented on the actions of the respondents in requisitioning the mini buses of the petitioners inasmuch as the orders are illegal. Such exercise of power as is indicated above was the subject of criticism of the petitioners on the ground of abuse of discretion and/or doctrine of dictation. It is fit and proper to put once again the relevance passage called from H. W. R. Wade's Administrative Law, Sixth Edition, at page 368. "ministers and their departments have several times fallen foul of the same rule, no doubt equally to their surprise. The Minister of Housing and Local Government made it a rule to refuse planning permission for gravel working on top class agricultural land whenever the application was opposed by the Minister of Agriculture. The Court held that this was to put the decisive power into the hands of the wrong Minister and that a decision so taken must be quashed. Similarly, the Court invalidated a reinstatement order made under wartime labour regulations by a national service officer, who was empowered to direct reinstatement of workers dismissed for misconduct. For the officer was acting under directions from the minister, whereas he was a statutory authority in his own right and should have exercised his personal discretion. The Minister's directions were merely that there should be reinstatement wherever the Appeal Board was unanimous. For the officer was acting under directions from the minister, whereas he was a statutory authority in his own right and should have exercised his personal discretion. The Minister's directions were merely that there should be reinstatement wherever the Appeal Board was unanimous. But in fact, the Minister had no power to lay down any such rule, however, reasonable. Even where there is a right of appeal to the Minister, and it may seem sensible to take account of his practice, it has been held that this must not be adopted uncritically, but this was a case where the Act specifically required a local authority to follow certain rules, which did not extend to the departmental practice which they followed wrongly. Clear cut cases of unlawful dictation have occurred in other jurisdiction where Ministers have attempted to interfere for political reasons. In one, the Prime Minister of Quebec gave instructions for the cancellation of a liquor licence where the licensee was supporting an unpopular section of the community; in another, an Indian Minister was alleged to have procured the taking over by the State of of business belonging to his political opponents. If the Minister's intervention is, in fact, the effective cause, and if the power to act belongs to a body which ought to act independently, the action taken is invalid on the ground of external dictation as well as on the obvious grounds of bad faith or abuse of power. ( 44 ) IT appears very clear that the Minister's intervention is, in fact, effective cause of the order of requisition and the power to act belongs to an authority which did not act independently. The action in issuing the order of requisition is liable for being interfered with by this Court on the ground of dictation as also on the ground that the impugned orders are to be quashed for mala fide exercise of powers though the definite allegations of mala fide are not made with particulars. It is not necessary that any named person is responsible for the act where the validity of the action taken by the Government is challenged as mala fide. It is specific allegation that the District Magistrate abused the power vested upon him by the Statute by orders of requisition of the mini buses of the petitioners passed by him. It is not necessary that any named person is responsible for the act where the validity of the action taken by the Government is challenged as mala fide. It is specific allegation that the District Magistrate abused the power vested upon him by the Statute by orders of requisition of the mini buses of the petitioners passed by him. Further reference may be made to the challenge to the action of the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 in misusing the provisions of the said Act for promoting private purposes of respondents No. 10 to 35 who by reason of ominous silence of the Police Authorities were empowered to commit wrongful acts. ( 45 ) MR. A. P. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. A. P. Sarkar and Sri Pantu Deb Rai claimed that the Requisitioning Authority in the instant case misused the power in breach of law by taking into consideration extraneous matters to the exclusion of the relevant matters. That such abuse of power, according to Mr. Chatterjee, rendered the order ultra vires. Since use of power is exercised for alien purposes other than the power for which such power could be exercised the order cannot but be called as mala fide exercise of power. The order does not disclose that the requisitioned vehicles would be run by the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality, Commissioners and Deputy Accountant of the Municipality. There cannot be any worse form of mala fide exercise of power than the present one. Had the petitioner not rushed to the Court for redressal of grievance, this Court would have no occasion to see how the State machinery is set in motion for achieving the purpose of certain body or person and for securing the demands of the Workers' Union which could have been decided by the competent forum. It is exercise of power for collateral purpose. On that ground, the order is liable to be struck down. The view that I have taken finds its support from a catena of decisions (cited) by Mr. A. P. Chatterjee the senior advocate for the petitioner namely, Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1964) 4 SCR 733 ; General Assembly of Free Church of Scottland v. Overtown reported in LR (1904) AC 515; Short v. Poole Corporation reported in LR (1926) Ch. A. P. Chatterjee the senior advocate for the petitioner namely, Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1964) 4 SCR 733 ; General Assembly of Free Church of Scottland v. Overtown reported in LR (1904) AC 515; Short v. Poole Corporation reported in LR (1926) Ch. D. 66; Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, reported in (1956) 1 QB 702; Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar reported in (1966) 1 SCR 709 and State of Punjab v. Ramjilal reported in (1970) 3 SCC 602 . ( 46 ) HOW strange is the conduct of the District Magistrate who has been used merely as a rubber stamp for the purpose of signing the order. A question that is now to be looked into how did the District Magistrate derive his power from the said Act to allow a foreign body which is not otherwise empowered by the said Act, to be entrusted with the power to run the mini buses to maintain and control the mini buses. Such entrustment is not specified by the said Act. ( 47 ) REFERENCE may be made to the decisions as would appear from the relevant passage of H. W. R. Wade as quoted above to the following effect :1. H. Lavender and Son Limited v. Minister of Housing and Local Government reported in (1970) 1 WLR 1231;2. Regina v. Police Complaints Board reported in (1983) I WLR 447;3. Simms Motor Units Limited v. Minister of Labour and National Service reported in (1946) 2 All ER 201;4. C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 962 . ( 48 ) THE passage culled from H. W. R. Wade as effectively referred to and relied on by Mr. Chatterjee before this Court on the question of doctrine of dictation and surrender refers to the abovementioned decision which have been cited at the Bar. C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 962 . ( 48 ) THE passage culled from H. W. R. Wade as effectively referred to and relied on by Mr. Chatterjee before this Court on the question of doctrine of dictation and surrender refers to the abovementioned decision which have been cited at the Bar. In case of H. Lavender and Sons Limited v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1970-1 All ER 1231) (supra), Willis J. while allowing the motion, inter alia, held that although the Minister was entitled to have a policy and to decide an appeal in the context of that policy he was nevertheless obliged properly to exercise his statutory discretion by giving genuine and unfettered consideration to whether on planning (including agricultural) grounds the land could be worked; but that by applying and adopting his stated policy he had in effect inhibited himself from exercising a proper, or any discretion, in a case where the Minister of Agriculture had made and maintained an objection. ( 49 ) THAT the duty to decide whether planning permission should be granted had been entrusted by Parliament to the Minister of Housing but, on a true construction of his decision letter, the Minister had wrongly delegated that decision to the Minister of Agriculture, so that he had not properly or at all exercised his duty or his discretion. ( 50 ) IN case of Regina v. Police Complaints Board (1983-1 WLR 447) (supra), Ncneill J. while granting the application held, inter alia, in the following manner:- it is held that the board, as an independent body with a duty to receive complaints, should not fetter its duty to consider instituting proceedings by accepting that it was bound by a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute, that the requirement in S. 3 (8) of the Act that the board had "to have regard" to the Guidance could not be construed as binding the board by its terms; and that accordingly, the board had to consider the complaints and determine whether to recommend and direct disciplinary proceedings against the police officers. ( 51 ) IN case of Simms Motor Units Limited v. Minister of Labour and National Service (1946-2 All ER 201) (supra) Humphreys and Lynskey JJ. ( 51 ) IN case of Simms Motor Units Limited v. Minister of Labour and National Service (1946-2 All ER 201) (supra) Humphreys and Lynskey JJ. held (i) the minister could only confer power upon himself or his representatives under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 by Statutory Rules and Orders. He could not, by giving instructions which were not Orders, limit the duties or discretion conferred on the national service officer by the Essential Work (General Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1942. ( 52 ) IN case of C. S. Rowji v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1964 SC 962 ) (supra), the Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh procured the taking over transport business belonging to his political parties and there was manifestation of external dictation as well as the bad faith and abuse of power. ( 53 ) WHILE discussing this point, it is necessary to place on record that the order of requisition which was passed at the pursuation of the Workers' Union and the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality was not in compliance with S. 3 of the said Act inasmuch as the opinion of the State Government was coloured by the dictates of the concerned Ministers, influence of Workers' Union and the District Magistrate simply acted as a rubber stamp of the Ministers' dictates. The Court cannot overlook the acting of the District Magistrate under dictates inasmuch as a situation of the authority not exercising discretion arises when the authority does not consider the matter itself but exercised its discretion under the dictates of the Ministers, under the influence of Workers' Union. This would constitute non-exercise of this power by the authority and will be treated as bad and without jurisdiction. ( 54 ) FROM a reference of the Radiogram of S. D. O. it appears that the District Magistrate did not function independently and his function was tainted with abdication of function inasmuch as District Magistrate without proper authority of law granted the Municipality to function merely on the basis of the instruction received from the S. D. O. It is not the acts where an authority, to whom delegations had been entrusted by the Statute may leave it to exercise for subordinates without acting himself. New Barrackpore Municipality is a local authority in the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. New Barrackpore Municipality is a local authority in the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, only State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. New Barrackpore Municipality have independent function and the Statute does not provide for such entrustment as it has been done. Had there been such entrustment by the Statute the functions of the New Barrackpore Municipality would have been valid. The Chairman/commissioners would not have been exposed for challenge. District Magistrate has not been entrusted by the provisions of the said Act only to act on the basis of the Radiogram and or the arrangement thus made by the Municipality and the workers' Union. Thus, there is a clear case of abdication of function by the District Magistrate merely on the basis of the reliance on the R. T. A. Sub-Divisional Officer. Mr. Chatterjee further referred to a catena of decisions discussed as under: the State Government as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, reported in AIR 1963 SC 507 could not give instructions to the consolidation officer functioning under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as there was no provision in the Act empowered the State Government to give any such instructions to reconsolidating officer. District Magistrate did not requisition the vehicle on his own but on the dictates of the Transport Ministers, Finance Ministers and Chief Minister. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar reported in (1969) 1 SCC 308 , P. F. Co-operative Society v. Collector, Thanjavur reported, in AIR 1975 Mad 81 , Mount Corporation v. Director of Industries reported in AIR 1965 Mys 143, The State of Punjab v. Hari Kishan Sharma, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1081 , Union of India v. P. K. Roy reported in AIR 1968 SC 850 , Rattonjee and Co. v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1967 Cal 450 . ( 55 ) WILL of the District Magistrate could not be said to be over-borne by reason of the advise and/or desire which came from the Ministers or from the authority superior to the authority entrusted with the discretion. v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1967 Cal 450 . ( 55 ) WILL of the District Magistrate could not be said to be over-borne by reason of the advise and/or desire which came from the Ministers or from the authority superior to the authority entrusted with the discretion. It was, therefore, wholly wrongful, improper, unauthorised and unwarranted for the District Magistrate to act on the basis of the desire and/or the approval of the arrangement by the concerned Minister which, in my view, is without the authority of law to requisition the vehicles and thereafter to entrust the Municipality which is not specified by the said Act to do such things and to act in such manner as are detailed above. ( 56 ) THE District Magistrate, in the facts and circumstances of this case, purported to act itself yet, in effect, it is not so as it does not take any action, a question in its own judgment as is intended by the Statute, District Magistrate and not exercise his own judgment, but merely acted as the conduit pipe of the concerned Ministers. The exercise of District Magistrate is also to be viewed from the anlge of the delegation of powers under S. 9 of the said Act. The District Magistrate delegates his power by entrusting the New Barrackpore Municipality or in other words, delegated its function to the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality. For the purpose of the present controversy, the function of the District Magistrate who took action on the desires and dictates of the concerned Ministers foreign body is examined. The pendency of the industrial dispute was sought to be settled by the concerned Ministers who was not the authority by intervening in the matter created an impasse, for that the petitioners cannot be held responsible. Erstwhile Minister Radhika Ranjan Banerjee was not the concerned Minister of Labour, even then he intervened and the Workers' Union prevailed upon erstwhile Food Minister, Sri Radhika Ranjan Banerjee, Finance Minister and Chief Minister for the purpose of securing the orders of requisition. It is to be noted that New Barrackpore Municipality is not a part of the State of West Bengal but it comes within the preview of Art. 12 of the Constitution. There could not be any delegation of power in favour of the local authority nor there could be any entrustment in favour of Municipality. It is to be noted that New Barrackpore Municipality is not a part of the State of West Bengal but it comes within the preview of Art. 12 of the Constitution. There could not be any delegation of power in favour of the local authority nor there could be any entrustment in favour of Municipality. ( 57 ) THE orders of requisition being incurably in law by reason of factors discussed above cannot but be declared to be invalid, illegal and improper. The extension of term of the order of requisition from time to time was challenged. The court is entitled to take note of the subsequent events to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to deny relief on purely technical and procedural questions. This aspect is required to be considered in the light of the contextual, factual and legal perspective. The order of requisition and the extension thereof as would appear cannot be made for such period as mentioned in the orders, but the period shall not exceed beyond one year. In the instant case, there is no order of extension of period of requisition after the order passed on October 8, 1987. The respondents did not present any application for variation in terms of the order of the Appeal Court. That being the position, extension of term of the period of requisition as contained in order dated October 8, 1987 amounts to unauthorised and unwarranted action. The Court is fully conscious of the principles that when Statute requires something to be done in a certain manner, it must be done in the manner alone, any other mode of purposes is strictly forbidden. There being no extension of period of requisition, confirming the order of the Appeal Court, the requisition of the vehicles beyond the period as covered by the order dated October 8, 1987 is an action being illegal and ultra vires S. 3 of the said Act. ( 58 ) WHILE dealing with this aspect, it is to be recorded that the State Government or its statutory functionaries or the person, if duly authorised, can exercise the statutory functions for the purpose of continuance of the order of requisition, but such power and functions can only be exercised not without any delegation or entrustment being made in favour of the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality. It is also an admitted position that no rules have been framed in terms of S. 14 of the said Act. The authorities are not oblivious of the fact that in the absence of the Rules, District Magistrate is proceeding arbitrarily. It is recorded in the Govt. file that how the requisition of the Mini buses could be made in the absence of the Rules regulating the matter and manner in which the requisition could be continued? Even the District Magistrate by a letter dated September 20, 1987 indicated that impression may arise in Court that this requisition initiated by the Government is not found sufficiently important by Transport Department. Framing of Rules is essential under which the authorities are required to function. Such requirement is absolutely lacking in the absence of Rules. The mode and manner in which the District Magistrate requisitioned the vehicles and allowed the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality with the power of delegation or entrustment warrants note of caution. The extension of the period of requisition suffered from the similar infirmities which crept in the absence of the Rules. The contention of the Requisitioning Authority is that the order of requisition was issued bona fide, legally and in the public interest and in obedience to the order dated April 23, 1987 could not be accepted by reason of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety that vitiated the order of requisition and the extension thereof. The contention of Requisitioning Authority is that the order of requisition made pursuant to direction of the said Transport Department, but the disclosure of the startling facts as are noted above completely demolished such contention and I am unable to persuade myself with the submission advanced by Mr. J. N. Halder, the learned counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Authority. ( 59 ) AS regards the extension of the period of requisition, the stand of the Requisitioning Authority is that the order or requisition was extended from time to time still the disposal or the variation or vacation of the petition by the High Court is without any foundation. Mr. Halder, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not place any application before this Court in support of the said statements made in paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Halder, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not place any application before this Court in support of the said statements made in paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition. In fact, no application for variation or vacation of interim order has, however, been filed before this Court so the extension of period of requisition on that basis is wholly without the authority of law. The District Magistrate who never acted independently passed the said order dated october 8, 1987 without the least application of mind to the materials on record or the order passed by this Court. ( 60 ) THE failure of the respondents to file application for vacation or variation of the interim order renders the order of extension of requisition of the Mini buses illegal. ( 61 ) IN the absence of the basis materials and/or non-filing of the application of variation or vacation of the interim order, the contention of the Requisitioning Authority that there is no time limit beyond which the order of requisition of any particular vehicle under the said Act cannot be made nor can be extended. (sic) The learned Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority focussed the expression "further orders" appearing in S. 3. The District Magistrate expressed his concern that the extension of the period of order of requisition cannot be made merely on the ipse dixit of the Workers' Union or the concerned Ministers. The Government records show that the District Magistrate repeatedly expressed concern over the extension of the period of requisition on various grounds. One of such grounds is non-plying of the three Mini Buses. The purposes of requisition of the buses is not served fully. On the other hand, Govt. liabilities are accumulated. It is also recorded that "it may please be instructed" whether the requisition should continue. So the plea of the respondents that the extension of the vehicle could be made for indefinite period in public interest stands belied by the records of the case. The orders of the extension of the period of requisition passed on October 8, 1987 without having regard to the basic fact that no application of vacation or variation of the interim order having been filed are hereby declared illegal and unpermissible, unwarranted and ultra vires S. 3 of the said Act. The orders of the extension of the period of requisition passed on October 8, 1987 without having regard to the basic fact that no application of vacation or variation of the interim order having been filed are hereby declared illegal and unpermissible, unwarranted and ultra vires S. 3 of the said Act. ( 62 ) THE show cause notices under S. 60 of the said Act issued by the RTA in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case could not be sustained. It is necessary to refer to the various factors namely, the grievance of the Workers' Union could have been settled by referring the matter to the appropriate forum for adjudication. The most shocking features of the case is that the petitioners moved for securing police help for the purpose of running the vehicle. The respondent Nos. 10 to 35 for the reasons recorded above prevented the petitioners from plying the vehicles. Regional Transport Authority completely remained silent over the matter. The legitimate right of the petitioners to carry on the plying of the Mini buses was interfered with by reasons of the failure of the statutory functionaries to discharge their statutory duties enjoined upon them under law. The stoppage of plying of the vehicles was effected by reason of the force, and wrongful confinement of vehicles the details whereof were given hereinbefore. Show cause notices for cancellation of permit issued for alien purposes namely, the said show cause notices under S. 60 of the Act 1939 were issued so as to compel the petitioners to yield to the dictates of the concerned Workers' Union in particular the respondents Nos. 10 to 35, inasmuch as mere perusal of the show cause notices would reveal that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority was cognizant of the compelling factors constituting grounds of non-plying of the vehicles issued the show cause notices. It is a matter of record that the concerned authorities were duly apprised of the said facts which prevented the petitioners from plying the vehicles. The New Barrackpore Mini Buses Association and its members expressed grave concern by informing the concerned authorities "we fell insecured as such we are not in a position to ply our vehicles, on and from 9-4-87". The secretary, Regional Transport Authorities was duly apprised of the facts and circumstances by a number of letters. The New Barrackpore Mini Buses Association and its members expressed grave concern by informing the concerned authorities "we fell insecured as such we are not in a position to ply our vehicles, on and from 9-4-87". The secretary, Regional Transport Authorities was duly apprised of the facts and circumstances by a number of letters. The concerned owner of the Mini buses duly recorded in the reply to the show cause notices that the Workers' Union did not allow the petitioners to ply on the scheduled route and violated the agreement made between the Association and the Workers' Union in presence of Radhika Ranjan Banerjee (former Food Minister) and Amitava Nandi, Member of the Board. It is also recorded till the normalcy is restored it would be difficult for the petitioners or the owners of the vehicles to ply the Mini buses. It is further recorded that the Workers' Union were requested to operate bifurcated route at least on the strength of existing staff. The workers' Union did not commply with the request of the owners of the Mini buses. Non-plying of the vehicles was effected by reason of the Workers' Union stand that the employees attached to the subject route brought to the notice of the RTA that the Workers' Union and anti-social elements harassed the employees and also drove away illegally some of the employees. In these circumstances, the employees who suffered oppression and harassment in the hands of the Workers' Union brought to the notice of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority that it would not be possible for them to discharge their duties in respect of the subject route on account of insecurity and threat to life. Recourse S. 60 of the said Act 1939 for cancellation or suspension of permits is unwarranted. The show cause notices were issued for the purposes extraneous to the provisions of S. 60 of the Act, 1939. ( 63 ) APART from above, it appears that the members of the Board perused the papers and report of the RTA, but the copy of the said report and papers were not placed before this Court. Mr. Radhika Ranjan Banerjee (former Food Minister), and one of members of the Board were parties to the proceedings and they were fully aware of the entire facts situation. Mr. Radhika Ranjan Banerjee (former Food Minister), and one of members of the Board were parties to the proceedings and they were fully aware of the entire facts situation. It is also recorded that an employee while on duty will not commit any wrongful acts nor should he behave improperly. All the terms contained in the agreement were violated by the Workers' Union. Non-plying of the vehicles of the owners of the mini buses was on account of the pressure created by the Workers' Union, who were not restrained either by the authority or responsible for maintaining law and order, nor by the concerned Regional Transport Authority from committing any wrongful acts including the confinement of the owners of the vehicles. Therefore, the power thus conferred upon the concerned authority under S. 60 of the Act, 1939, in my view, was not exercised properly and bona fide and with due application of mind. The Regional Transport Authority while exercising its power under S. 60 of the Act, 1939 for cancellation or suspension of permit is required to act in a quasi judicial manner. The Regional Transport Authority had no material before it that the petitioners or the owners of vehicles did not ply the vehicles deliberately or in calculated manner, nor were there any materials before the R. T. A. that the facts and circumstances warrant issue of the show cause notices at the time when the owners of the vehicles were compelled to suffer wrongful acts committed by the Workers' Union and the respondent Nos. 10 to 35 and thereby the petitioners were prevented from plying the vehicles. In these circumstances, the show cause notices under S. 60 of the Act, 1939, in my view could not and should not have been issued so as to compel the owner of the vehicles to accept the dictates of the Workers' Union. Power thus exercised by the concerned authority under S. 60 of the Act, 1939 for the purposes not covered by S. 60 of the said Act. It also appears from Annexure "c" to the writ application that Rabin Pal in violation of the agreement unilaterally expelled some of the workers from the said Union, as a sequel thereto, they were, therefore, expelled from the route so that they might not be allowed to work in the subject route under the petitioners as drivers and conductors. It also appears from Annexure "c" to the writ application that Rabin Pal in violation of the agreement unilaterally expelled some of the workers from the said Union, as a sequel thereto, they were, therefore, expelled from the route so that they might not be allowed to work in the subject route under the petitioners as drivers and conductors. Workers' Union is not the employer of the employees, nor the Act, 1939 authorises the Workers' Union to drive out expelled members from the said route where the petitioners were plying the vehicles. This fact was brought to the notice of the President of Workers' Union. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority was duly informed by a letter as contained in Annexure "c" to the writ application that it "is not possible for" the petitioners to ply their mini buses on the route due to violation of the agreement reached with the Workers' Union and Syndicate before Shri Amitava Nandi and Radhika Ranjan Banerjee (former Food Minister ). The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority was well aware of the problems that effected the plying of mini buses in the subject route at large scale and they were, further, aware of the fact that efforts were under way to discuss the problems. All these facts would be borne by the records of the R. T. A. and such efforts were being made by the some of the owners of the vehicles. The focal point, therefore, emerged as to why, how and in what circumstances whether the concerned authority responsible for maintaining law and, order and the R. T. A. did not ensure that the petitioners were allowed to ply the vehicles without being subjected to oppression, wrongful acts and physical interference. At this stage, the show cause notice was issued. ( 64 ) I am of the view that paramount socio-economic interest in the modern times takes many forms in its simplest form. It is an interest long recognised in legal system that the safety, security and life of the people is the highest law. Police should not be crippled at the dictates received from the corridor of power. Police Authority are required to maintain peace and public order. In the instant case it was observed that it is unfortunate that the police authorities who are charged with inaction, inattention and inaptitude did not file any affidavit controverting the allegations made against them. Police should not be crippled at the dictates received from the corridor of power. Police Authority are required to maintain peace and public order. In the instant case it was observed that it is unfortunate that the police authorities who are charged with inaction, inattention and inaptitude did not file any affidavit controverting the allegations made against them. ( 65 ) THE founding fathers of the Constitution never thought the State shall exercise its power in arbitrary manner to take away the right of the petitioners to carry on business or to endanger the life of citizens at the dictates of the political power. The State must see that the individual life of the citizen is not imperiled nor a citizen is deprived of his right imperiled of the constitutional protection for his safety and security. That right, in my view, has been utterly violated by the respondents. The show cause notices were issued on consideration wholly extraneous to the objects of the Act and on irrelevant materials. Action of the respondents ought not to have affected the right of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Show cause notices for the reasons quoted above and any action taken in pursuance thereof are all declared illegal, invalid and inoperative. ( 66 ) THE most shocking and startling aspect of the matter is now to be looked into. It is an admitted fact that District Magistrate in absence of any delegation of power and the authority to effect entrustment in favour of the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality allowed them to take over the control of the mini buses to ply the vehicles and to do such acts as are mentioned above. The emergent meeting of the Commissioner of New Barrackpore Municipality was held on April 26, 1987 at 8 a. m. The said resolution is a very significant one. How the Municipality could be entrusted with the responsibility of plying the vehicles requisitioned under the provisions of the said Act. How Sarvasree N. Karmakar and N. Banerjee Commissioners of New Barrackpore Municipality were empowered and still empowered to sign on the tickets and the seal of the Municipality will have to be used on the said tickets for using the requisitioned mini buses whatsover? How Sarvasree N. Karmakar and N. Banerjee Commissioners of New Barrackpore Municipality were empowered and still empowered to sign on the tickets and the seal of the Municipality will have to be used on the said tickets for using the requisitioned mini buses whatsover? How Shri B. Singha Chowdhury, Deputy Accountant of the Municipality is authorised to receive all the sale proceeds of the mini buses and maintain proper account in this regard? How the District Magistrate is empowered to allow the Municipality and its Chairman and other Commissioners to function in the manner detailed above in absence of any delegation of power or rules or in the absence of authority of law? ( 67 ) FURTHER surprise is still in store for this Court which would not have seen the light of the day, but for fairness of Shri J. N. Halder the learned counsel to produce records of the case. On July 8, 1987 District Magistrate pursuant to his letter dated April 25, 1987 entrusted the Chairman of the New Barrackpore Municipality with the duties of maintaining the service regulation plying of the mini buses on the subject route on behalf of the Administration. The power reserved to the District Magistrate under the provisions of the said Act is exercised beyond the scope of his competence, authority and jurisdiction. In my view, the entire action of the District Magistrate or the State Govt. is warranted to be declared as ultra vires. Record would show that the authorities were reminded time and again that the Rules under which the requisitioning authorities are required to function have not been framed. Even then the statutory authorities by their illegal acts and without the authority of law allowed Chairman of Municipality to take the charge of the Mini buses and to discharge such functionaries as are stated above. ( 68 ) THE District Magistrate, a man of prudence should not allow himself to be swayed by the dictates of the Ministers and the Workers' Union so as to destroy fundamental rights of the petitioners. Much is said about the faith in the Constitution, but this act presents a picture of absolute negation of Rule of law. This is one of the cases where the Court is confronted with the abuse of power and abuse of discretion infected with the ultra vires entrustment. Much is said about the faith in the Constitution, but this act presents a picture of absolute negation of Rule of law. This is one of the cases where the Court is confronted with the abuse of power and abuse of discretion infected with the ultra vires entrustment. The District Magistrate has and had no power to entrust the Chairman of the New Barrackpore Municipality to take control of the seven Mini buses to run mini buses with the help of the two Commissioners and the Deputy Accountant. It is unheard that the State Government without framing any rules permit the District Magistrate to function without any authority of law and the District Magistrate in absence of any rules allowed a foreign body to run the vehicles under the provisions of the said Act in complete absence of any rules which are required to be framed in exercise of power conferred upon the authority under S. 14 of the said Act. ( 69 ) THE famous maxim delegates non-protest delegare is to be discussed. The said maxim very often used for centuries, so as to demarcate the bounds of exercise of power under the delegated Legislation. Here, no rules have been framed. ( 70 ) IN the absence of any delegation of power, the decision of the District Magistrate to entrust the Chairman and the two Commissioner of the New Barrackpore Municipality and the Deputy Accountant cannot be sustained for the reasons indicated above. The word "entrustment" is not available in the provisions of the said Act. The District Magistrate, in my view, therefore, acted beyond his jurisdiction and powers conferred upon him by the Notification in entrusting the Chairman, two Commissioners and the Deputy Accountant of the Municipality to run the vehicles to keep accounts, to make payment of salaries, bonus and to take control of the said seven Mini buses. It is also to be taken into account that the District Magistrate has no power of delegation nor has he power to entrust the Municipality. The District Magistrate himself being delegate can neither further delegate or entrust the Chairman and the two Commissioners and the Deputy Accountant of the Municipality. It is also to be taken into account that the District Magistrate has no power of delegation nor has he power to entrust the Municipality. The District Magistrate himself being delegate can neither further delegate or entrust the Chairman and the two Commissioners and the Deputy Accountant of the Municipality. The Court is, therefore, required to examine this aspects of the matter as regards the authority of the District Magistrate to entrust the Chairman of the Municipality to allow by way of an unauthorised act of "entrustment" to take control of the property viz. the Mini buses of the petitioners. The resolution of the Municipality dated April 20, 1987 was adopted on the basis of the request from the Regional Transport Authority, Barasat, the Executive Magistrate representing the District Magistrate. The said resolution shows the complete abuse of power and mala fide exercise of power by the Requisitioning Authority. Considering this aspect of the matter I am of the view that the New Barrackpore Municipality, its Chairman, two Commissioners and the Deputy Accountant could not be entrusted with the administration of the plying of the vehicles according to the directions of the District Magistrate. Now the Court is required to go in for a cat-scan of the actions of the District Magistrate which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; constitute serious inroad into Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. ( 71 ) THE stand taken by the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 viz. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region, Chairman of the Municipality before this Court by Mr. Manik Ch. Das, the learned Advocate is stated above. The Transport Authority took up the position that they have and/or had no machinery for maintaining law and order in regard to the plying of the mini buses on the subject route and the deponent namely Sabyasachi Rakshit asked the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for relief. The decision of the Transport Authority to render service to the public was taken and the said decision was taken in the interest of the travelling public in general. The decision of the Transport Authority to render service to the public was taken and the said decision was taken in the interest of the travelling public in general. It is interesting to note that the respondent Transport Authority while disclosing the fact that they have no apparatus for protecting the Mini buses owners from onslaught from any quarter nor any statutory machinery for maintaining normalcy in the subject route of the Mini buses of the petitioners in question, shifted the entire responsibility upon the petitioners as will appear from the show cause notices which have been averred in paragraph 14 of the Affidavit-in-opposition of the said Transport Authority. The said show cause notices as indicated above are sought to be justified by the respondents, but the invalidity of the show cause notices, dealt with in details as herein before, by no application of the fundamentals of fairness could be sustained. ( 72 ) THE act of 'entrustment' committed by the District Magistrate is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act. Under the said Act there is no such provision whereby the Requisitioning Authorities could entrust the Municipality with the responsibility of plying the vehicles on behalf of the Requisitioning Authority. There is no word 'entrustment' engrafted in the provision. The District Magistrate by his act of 'entrustment' allowed the Municipality to control the vehicles, to run the vehicles, to maintain the income and expenditure account, to pay salaries and bonus to those engaged in the Mini buses and to do whatever necessary for the purpose of running of the said Mini Buses. In the absence of any such provision of 'entrustment' in the said Act, and in the absence of Rules, I am of the view, that the District Magistrate having requisitioned the vehicles was and/or is incompetent to entrust the Municipality, its Chairman and two Commissioners to discharge the functions in the manner indicated above. The District Magistrate has no power to hand over the possession of the vehicles to the Municipality in the garb of "entrustment". The word "entrustment" has different implications in different context. While the Court is not required to examine the word "entrustment" in the absence of any such power given to the District Magistrate who acted arbitrarily, illegally and without the authority of law to pass such ultra vires orders. The word "entrustment" has different implications in different context. While the Court is not required to examine the word "entrustment" in the absence of any such power given to the District Magistrate who acted arbitrarily, illegally and without the authority of law to pass such ultra vires orders. ( 73 ) WHILE examining the matter the Court cannot otherwise by-pass or ignore or overlook the absence of delegation of power. It is admitted by the respondents that no rules have been framed. All action taken by the District Magistrate pursuant to the order dated April 14, 1987 being wholly infirm in law are ultra vires Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The executive cannot usurp the legislative functions. ( 74 ) IN the absence of delegation, it is appropriate for the Court to present a skeletal narration of the fundamentals of the delegation of legislation. Had the Rules been framed under Section 14 of the said Act," such question would not have arisen. Power of entrusting the Municipality or to delegate such powers which could otherwise be exercised by the Requisitional Authority, if it is specified in the Act itself. The State Government has not framed any Rules for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the Act namely, in particular, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Act. The respondents namely, the requisitioning Authority forcibly took possession of the vehicles and thereafter, did not look after the maintenance of those vehicles. Some of the vehicles at least two according to the report, of the Special Officer as also from the records of the case have been rendered idle. All the seven mini buses suffered damages. The efficacy of the jurisdiction on the ground of ultra vires the acts of the respondents depends on the plenitude of the Statutory provisions delegating the Rules making power. In such a situation, how the State Government could continue the order of requisition in the absence of delegation of powers is a matter which cannot but be deprecated. ( 75 ) FROM the report of the concerned automobile experts, it appears that most of the vehicles having suffered extreme form of damages which warrants immediate repairs and/or replacements. Requisition of the vehicles in an unauthorised manner. ( 75 ) FROM the report of the concerned automobile experts, it appears that most of the vehicles having suffered extreme form of damages which warrants immediate repairs and/or replacements. Requisition of the vehicles in an unauthorised manner. The District Magistrate allowed mini buses to be run by Municipality and not by the Mini Buses owners is without the authority of law. The State Government cannot escape its liability for making the losses suffered by the respondents and they are required to adequate compensation @ Rs. 325/- per diem which should commensurate with the maintenance of the vehicles repayment of Bank loans and livelihood of the petitioners. When there is no such framing of the Rules nor there is any delegated legislation the efficacy of the doctrine of "entrustment" is uncalled for. It is not necessary for this Court to go into this question by reason of the failure of the respondents State Government to make Rules in conformity with Section 14 of the said Act. The actions of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, North in making the order of "entrustment" in favour of the Municipality and/or its Chairman and others belonging to the Municipality is unconstitutional - in particular, Articles 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The State Government and the District Magistrate abuse its powers conferred upon it by the Statute by issuing order of requisition of vehicles without framing of the Rules. ( 76 ) EXERCISE of powers of the State Government which authorised the District Magistrate to act as a Requisitioning Authority is wholly mala fide exercise of power. ( 77 ) AS regards misuse of powers and ultra vires order of entrustment, this Court cannot but reach findings that the Notification dated April 14, 1987 the orders of the requisition of Mini Buses, the extension of period of requisition by orders as disclosed above and the show cause notices under Section 60 of the said Act, 1939 are illegal and without prediction. ( 78 ) THE action of the respondents not only prevents the petitioners from carrying on their business independently but also completely crippled their rights to repay the loans taken from the Nationalised Banks and other Financial Institutions. ( 78 ) THE action of the respondents not only prevents the petitioners from carrying on their business independently but also completely crippled their rights to repay the loans taken from the Nationalised Banks and other Financial Institutions. It is the responsibility and the duty of the R. T. A. which derives its power from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to see and control the plying of the vehicle not being interfered with by the Workers' Union which took up the law and order in its own hands. There is no whisper that the R. T. A. took up the matter with the Officer-in-Charge and the Superintendent of Police. The Officer-in-Charge and the Superintendent of Police being the statutory functionaries are required to protect the right of the petitioners to ply the mini buses which is the source of the livelihood of the petitioners. 'life' engrafted in Article 21 of the Constitution includes livelihood. Instead of taking steps for smooth plying of the vehicle on the subject route by taking necessary steps for maintaining law and order, the Officer-in-Charge and the Superintendent of Police maintained after being cognizant of the facts which resulted in non-plying of the vehicle could not have found out the basis of the non-plying of the vehicle by reason of the interference of the Workers' Union and the concerned respondents Nos. 10 to 35. The orders of requisition of mini buses have and had the effect of de facto cancellation of permit. Permit is a property within the meaning of Article 300a of the Constitution. The right to property being constitutional right within the meaning of Article 300a of the Constitution, the said right cannot be taken away by ultra vires acts and actions. I am of the view that the Transport Authority and the Officer-in-Charge and the Superintendent of Police are responsible for the enforcement of the existing laws. ( 79 ) THE Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas, being the Head of the Police Administration of the North 24-Parganas District, cannot remain silent nor should he act as mute spectator at the relevant time when the plying of the vehicles was interfered with by the respondents Nos. 10 to 35 and the Workers' Union. District Magistrate has general control over the administration of the District. 10 to 35 and the Workers' Union. District Magistrate has general control over the administration of the District. The State Government and its officers are responsible for arbitrary actions which completely deprived the petitioners of their right to carry on business and their right to live. Peculiar feature of the case is that the State cannot offer any employment to an unemployed youth, nor could they provide any other employment opportunities to an educated unemployed youth or the persons who by taking loan from the Banks and other financial institutions could maintain their life by plying the vehicles. The State instead of protecting their life miserably failed to do anything in the matter of protection of life and business. Agreement was reached at the instance of the Ministers of Food. It is not known how Radhika Ranjan Banerjee (former Food Minister) did intervene in the matter and obtained settlement and allowed the said agreement to be flouted by the Workers' Union and the respondents Nos. 10 to 35. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, no citizen, desirous of starting business either small or big would dare doing so. Lethargy, sluggishness and inaptitude completely affected deep inroad into the corridor of power. The Executives do not have any time to look after the grievances even if genuine of a citizen and commit violence on the statutes and rules. Superior authority for undisclosed reasons allow lawlessness authority prevail and thereby, work out injustice to citizen. ( 80 ) MR. A. P. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, claimed that the Court should not overlook the fundamentals of the State lawlessness and the Constitution. Respondents, in particular, the police authorities as claimed by Mr. Chatterjee should not be permitted to disregard the law and the Constitution. Inaction of the Police authorities should not be ignored inasmuch as such inaction has exposed citizens to dangers. Mr. Chatterjee also seriously commented on the police inaction as also illegalities committed by the respondents Nos. 10 to 35. ( 81 ) REFERENCE is made by Mr. Chatterjee to the observation of Justice Brandies who looked upon the Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher (that) teaches the whole people by its example Justice Brandies further said that if the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself. ( 81 ) REFERENCE is made by Mr. Chatterjee to the observation of Justice Brandies who looked upon the Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher (that) teaches the whole people by its example Justice Brandies further said that if the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself. Justice Brandies several years ago said in Omstead v. U. S. (1928-277 U. S. 438) quoted in Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) 367 US 643, 659 (Emphasis supplied by the Court ). ( 82 ) QUESTION now emerges where the petitioners will go? If they move before the competent forum they will be left in the hands of muscle power before any decision is taken. Why the owner of the vehicles could be forcibly taken from his house and could be confined in goompty? Why the Superintendent of Police did not take any step although the petitioners failed to have their protest recorded before the Superintendent of Police or before the higher authority? The Sub-Divisional Officer was not powerless. He could have given adequate relief to owners of the mini buses. ( 83 ) WORKERS' Union is not a statutory authority, nor the Municipality which is local authority in terms of the Article 12 of the Constitution could take control of the mini buses to run the same without there being any responsibility for rendering any accounts therefor. Mini buses were in damaged condition. Was it not the duty of the Requisitioning Authority to repair the mini buses? or the Requisitioning Authority allows the condition of the mini buses to be deteriorated. In fact, there has been deterioration in condition of mini buses for which lawful claim has been made. The facts of the case would shock the conscience of any person of ordinary prudence. ( 84 ) THE role of the State Government and its officers is not meant for carrying out the unauthorised dictates of the Ministers but they are to discharge their statutory functions and they should discharge the same as are conferred upon them by the Statute. It is indeed a pitiable condition that a citizen has to come to the Court for relief in such circumstances where their security, safety as regards life and property stand imperiled though State remains simple spectator. It is indeed a pitiable condition that a citizen has to come to the Court for relief in such circumstances where their security, safety as regards life and property stand imperiled though State remains simple spectator. Muscle power is permitted to paralyse the plying of the mini buses, and thereafter, prevail upon the Ministers and the superior authority to obtain a requisition of mini buses and take complete control thereof at the instance of the District Magistrate who never cared to find out whether he has the power to entrust the Municipality to do such acts as are effectively mentioned above. ( 85 ) THE Superintendent of Police and the Officer-in-Charge, in my view, did not act in terms of the relevant provisions of the Statute empowering the Superintendent of Police, Head of the Police Administration, to enforce that the interest of the travelling public is not affected by reason of interference with the plying of the vehicle of the petitioners by the workers' union. ( 86 ) ALL the impugned actions including the show cause notices under Section 60 of the said Act, the order of requisition of the vehicles and the extension thereof by order dated October and, 1987 are hereby declared ultra vires the provisions of the said Act. ( 87 ) SINCE the petitioner succeeds in the application, the petitioners, in terms of the statements made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition sworn and affirmed by Mr. Routh on July 4, 1988 shall be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 325/- per day with effect from the date of Notification No. 2176 (W)/ 3m-19/ 87 dated February 18, 1988 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal and the said Notification provides Rs. 325/- per day plus fuel at the rate 3. 5 KM per litre. ( 88 ) REQUISITIONING of the mini buses being ultra vires, the entire calculation shall be made from the month of April 25, 1987, i. e. , from the date of requisition on the basis of Rs. 288/- per day in respect of each of the petitioners up to February 17, 1988. Thereafter calculation shall be made at the rate of Rs. 325/- per day with effect from February 18, 1988 till the date of release. 288/- per day in respect of each of the petitioners up to February 17, 1988. Thereafter calculation shall be made at the rate of Rs. 325/- per day with effect from February 18, 1988 till the date of release. ( 89 ) THE respondent authorities are required to de-requisition the mini buses in terms of the said Act to the petitioners after proper and complete repair of the damages caused to the mini buses and the expenses towards the repairs shall have to be borne by the respondent No. 3. All other financial and statutory liabilities which would have been accrued to the petitioners had the order not been passed now are to be borne by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by reason of unauthorised, unwarranted and arbitrary action. Each of the petitioners till the determination of the compensation in terms of and in accordance with the Act shall be paid within two weeks from the date of passing of this order a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 on ad hoc basis. Be it recorded that the actions of the Commissioners and the Chairman of New Barrackpore Municipality are hereby declared ultra vires and null and void. ( 90 ) VEHICLES after proper repairs being effected should be derequisitioned and returned to the petitioners within seven days from communication of the said order. ( 91 ) I further direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to ply their vehicles on the basis of the permits granted by the Respondents on the respective subject route i. e. 175 and 175/1, New Barrackpore to National Library and Baraset to High Court. The Superintendent of Police, North 24 Parganas and the concerned Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station shall give effective protection for plying of their vehicles of the petitioners in respect of the route as detailed above and to see that no interference with the plying of the vehicles of the petitioners is effected by the Workers' Union and its agents and associations. Damages thus caused to the vehicles shall be thoroughly repaired. Mr. S. Dutta, an automobile expert of 81/2a, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta 700016 is appointed to examine and ascertain that damages thus caused to the Mini buses of the petitioners are properly and thoroughly repaired. Mr. Damages thus caused to the vehicles shall be thoroughly repaired. Mr. S. Dutta, an automobile expert of 81/2a, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta 700016 is appointed to examine and ascertain that damages thus caused to the Mini buses of the petitioners are properly and thoroughly repaired. Mr. Dutta is directed to examine each of the vehicles and the extent of damages caused to the vehicles, and for that purpose, shall take the help of a Photographer for the purpose of taking photographs of the vehicles. The Superintendent of Police shall depute a competent officer at the time when Mr. Dutta shall check, examine and ascertain the damages thus caused to the vehicles. Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station is directed to be present and they shall also issue appropriate certificate that Mr. Dutta, an automobile expert, duly examined the repairs of the vehicles in their presence and the Photographs are also taken in their presence and shall submit a report in a sealed cover before Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court within 30 days from date. Mr. Dutta shall be paid a remuneration by the petitioners assessed at 200 Gms. The employees who are shown employees by the petitioners on April 8, 1987 shall be allowed to join duties and discharge their functions as drivers and conductors. ( 92 ) IN the event of there being dispute in the employment of the employees and their joining the same shall be referred to the appropriate authority for adjudication. The dispute if there be any shall not prevent the petitioners from plying their vehicles on the respective routes i. e. , 175 and the 175/1. As regards compensation and damages, application by the petitioners in their individual capacity shall be presented before the authority. The State Government is directed to determine the compensation in accordance with the stand taken in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Requisitioning Authority. The petitioners should be given reasonable opportunity of adducing both oral and documentary evidences including Special Officer's report on determination of damages made by Shri S. Dutta. Since the Special Officer's report having been unchallenged is binding upon the parties to the proceeding. The petitioners should be given reasonable opportunity of adducing both oral and documentary evidences including Special Officer's report on determination of damages made by Shri S. Dutta. Since the Special Officer's report having been unchallenged is binding upon the parties to the proceeding. The State Government is also directed to make available funds forthwith at the disposal of the Requisitioning Authority for the payment of Rupees One lakh to each of the petitioners on ad hoc basis pending, the determination of the compensation as is directed above. The amount already paid to the petitioners and to be paid pursuant to the order of this Court shall be subject to the adjustment at the time of final payment of compensation. ( 93 ) ACCORDINGLY, the application is allowed. No order as to costs. ( 94 ) STAY of operation of this judgment as prayed for by Mr. J. N. Halder, the learned Advocate for the State respondents is granted for seven days from today. Petition allowed.