Dr. B. P. Saraf, J.— These five writ petitions raise important questions of law which relate to the scope and ambit of the powers of the authorities under section 3 of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 to requisition any vehicle and their obligation to pay compensation to the owner of such vehicle under sections 4 and 5 thereof. It was stated at the Bar that the issues involved in these writ petitions are not confined only to the petitioners but are of great public importance as the requisition of vehicles in Assam is almost a regular phenomenon which affects the day to day life of almost every citizen. On behalf of the petitioners, it was stated that in the purported exercise of power of requisition, vehicles-even private vehicles-are taken away by the police from the persons in possession thereof without having slightest regard to the requirements of the law. None of the procedures laid down in the Act is followed-even notice to the owner, which is mandatory, is not served before the requisition. The whole thing is done in a most high handed manner. The modus operandi, it was stated, is simple. Vehicles are stopped on the way by the police personnel, who are often armed with blank requisition orders duly signed by the authorised officers, mostly by Additional Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Magistrates. The relevant documents of the vehicles are taken away from the driver-the requisition form is filled up and handed over to him. This completes both requisition as well as taking over of possession. Passengers, if any, are often asked to get down. The owner, unaware of the purported requisition, often spends anxious hours waiting for the scheduled return of his vehicle. He can know of it only in course of the search for it - except in cases where some persons who were travelling in the vehicle at the time of requisition and were asked to get down inform him of their fate. The requisitioning authority or the police, however, bother least to inform the owner of the purported requisition even after the vehicle is taken away by them. 2. This, in brief, is the procedure of requisition followed in practice. All the petitioners in these writ petitions, who are more than 100 in number, claim to be victims of such high handed requisitions. 2. This, in brief, is the procedure of requisition followed in practice. All the petitioners in these writ petitions, who are more than 100 in number, claim to be victims of such high handed requisitions. Their common grievance is mainly on the following counts. First according to them, requisition can only be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act which lays down certain conditions precedent for the purpose. It is only on the existence of any of those conditions that a vehicle can be requisitioned and that too by following the procedure laid down therein. But that is not done. Neither the conditions exist nor the requirements are complied with but still vehicles are taken away in the name of "requisition". Such action is challenged as illegal and without any authority of law. 3. Secondly, it is stated that in the purported exercise of the power under section 3 of the Act, even private cars and other vehicles (i. e. vehicles other than public service vehicles) are requisitioned. It is contended that this is an unique phenomenon in Assam as nowhere else in the country, private cars are even requisitioned by the State or its functionaries-not even for election purposes. It is submitted that such requisitions amount to gross abuse of the power and are most illegal. 4. The next grievance of the petitioners relate to non-payment of compensation in respect of the vehicles under requisition. It is stated that the Act makes it obligatory on the part of the authorities to pay compensation to the owners of the vehicles soon after release from requisition but scant regard is shown to this solemn obligation. As a result, in most of the cases, compensation is either not paid at all or paid after years and years. It was stated that claims for compensation are generally lodged only by the owners of public service vehicles who run the same on hire. There is none even to attend to their claims which remain in cold storage indefinitely without any action. In the present cases also claims are pending for almost a decade. It was stated that claims for compensation are generally lodged only by the owners of public service vehicles who run the same on hire. There is none even to attend to their claims which remain in cold storage indefinitely without any action. In the present cases also claims are pending for almost a decade. So far as the owners of private vehicles are concerned, it was stated that most of them get contended with the very release of their vehicles and hardly prefer any claim for compensation as they feel, and rightly so, that it would be an exercise in futility. Counsel submitted that the facts of the present writ petitions will bear clear testimony to the aforesaid statements. The petitioners seek suitable directions from this Court both in the matter of requisition as well as compensation. 5. We shall revert to the facts of each of five writ petitions a little later as, in our opinion, to appreciate the issues raised, it is expedient to first examine the scheme of the Assam I acquisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 (hereinafter 'the Act') and the relevant provisions thereof. 6. This Act was enacted in the year 1968 empowering the State Government to requisition the vehicles. Such an enactment did exist ever since the year 1950 which expired on 30th September, 1964. After that the need for requisitioning the vehicles was felt by the Government particularly during the emergency. Such requisi­tions were therefore made at that time under the Defence of India Rules. But after the revocation of the proclamation of emergency and the Defence of India Rules ceasing to operate, it was consi­dered necessary to mike fresh law empowering the Government to requisition vehicles. Since the Assembly was not in session when the Defence of India Rules ceased to operate, an Ordinance viz, the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Ordinance, 1968 was promulgated by the Government on 13.7.1968 which) was later repealed by the present Act. This is the brief historical background of the Act from which it is evident that requisition of vehicles had always been only an emergency measure. It is because of this that requisitions under this Act are restricted only for the purposes specified in section 3 of the Act. 7. The relevant provisions of the Act are sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. Section 3 deals with the power to requisition vehicles. It is because of this that requisitions under this Act are restricted only for the purposes specified in section 3 of the Act. 7. The relevant provisions of the Act are sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. Section 3 deals with the power to requisition vehicles. It provides : 3. Power to requisition vehicles-(1) If in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for purpose essential to the life of the community or for main­taining public order or for facility of public transport, it may pass an order in writing requisitioning any vehicle and may make such orders as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with such requisition. (2) The State Government may requisition any vehicle by serving on the owner thereof, or where the owner is not readily traceable or the ownership is in dispute, by publication in the official Gazette, an order under sub-section (1). (3) If the owner of the vehicle does not, after service of the order in the manner provided in sub-section (2), place the vehicle in the possession of the officer or authority mentioned therein, such officer or authority may seize the vehicle from any person who may for the time being be in possession thereof. (4) Where the State Government has requisitioned any vehicle it may, use or deal with it in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient". 'Vehicle' has been defined in clause (e) of section 2 means : "any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of transport of persons or goods upon roads or inland water­ways, whether propelled by mechanical power or not.'' Section 4 provides for payment of compensation to the owner of a requisitioned vehicle. It reads : "4. Payment of compensation-(1) Whenever ,in pursuance of section 3, the State Government requisition any vehicle, there shall be paid to the owner such compensation §s may be determined by the State Government. (2) While determining the compensation under sub-section (1), the State Government shall take into consideration- a) the model, make, type, class and condition of the vehicle : b) the loss of earning, if any, sustained by the owner by reason of requisition; and fix the compensation at such rate as the State Government may deem fair. (2) While determining the compensation under sub-section (1), the State Government shall take into consideration- a) the model, make, type, class and condition of the vehicle : b) the loss of earning, if any, sustained by the owner by reason of requisition; and fix the compensation at such rate as the State Government may deem fair. (3) The compensation fixed under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the officer or authority requisitioning the vehicle : such officer or authority shall not r-e bound to pay any dues outstanding on mortgages and other encumbrances of the requisitioned vehicle." Section 5 deals with the manner of release of the vehicle from requisition. It provides for service of a notice in writing on the owner asking him to take delivery of the vehicle. With the service of such notice, the officer or authority is discharged from further liability for compensation with effect from the date mentioned therein. It also provides for making of further payment in addition to requisition compensation, on account of compensation for material damage done to the vehicle during period of requisition. It reads : "5. Release from requisition-(1) The officer or authority requisitioning a vehicle may at any time release the vehicle from requisition and when it is decided so to do, a notice in writing shall be served on the owner to take delivery of the vehicle on or within such date and from such place and such person as may be specified therein. (2) With effect from such date no further liability for compensation or payment of any other kind shall lie with the officer or authority requisitioning the vehicle: Provided that such officer or authority may make such further payment on account of compensation for any material damage done to the vehicle during the period of requisition, as assessed in the manner mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 4 of this, Act. (3) The delivery of possession of the vehicle to the owner or his accredited agent shall be a full discharge of any liability of the State Government to deliver possession to such person as may have rightful claim to possession thereof but shall not prejudice any right in respect of such vehicle which any other person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom possession of the vehicle is so delivered. (4) If the owner fails to take delivery of the vehicle on or within the specified date the officer or authority who passed the order to release of the vehicle may dispose of the same thereafter: Provided that such -officer or authority shall be competent to allow to the owner such extension of time as he/k may deem proper without any liability for any compensation or other payment for the period of extension. (5) The disposal of a vehicle under sub section (4) shall be by public auction and at the risk of the owner and the sale proceeds shall be made over to the owner after deducting any expenditure incurred by the officer or authority releasing the vehicle due to the owner not taking delivery of it on or within the specified date." Section 6 provides for reference of disputes regarding determination of amount of compensation to the Court. It is in the following terms : “6. Reference to Court-.If the owner of the vehicle is aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined, he may make an application to the Stats Government for referring the matter to the Court." Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act puts a restriction on any order being challenged in any Court of law. It reads : "14. Savings.-(1) No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court of law.......* Section 11 empowers the State Government to delegate any of its powers and duties under the Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it. It reads : "11. Delegation of functions-The State Government, may by order, direct that any power or duty which is conferred or imposed on the State Government by this Act shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in that direction, be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority subordinate to it.' Section 17 vests the State Government with power to make rules for carrying out .the purposes of the Act. No rules, however, have been framed as yet. There is no provision in the Act for any representation, appeal or revision against any order passed thereunder. There are some of the salient provisions of the Act which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in the cases before u<. No rules, however, have been framed as yet. There is no provision in the Act for any representation, appeal or revision against any order passed thereunder. There are some of the salient provisions of the Act which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in the cases before u<. Before dealing with the issues, it may be expedient to examine critically some of these provisions to appreciate their true scope and import. We may first take up section 3 which deals with the power of requisition. 8. From a plain reading of section 3 it is clear that the power of requisitioning any vehicle is subject to the following conditions- (!) The State Government (or any officer or authority subordinate to it delegated with such function) it of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to requisition any vehicle- i) for the purpose essential to the life of the community; or ii) for maintaining public order; or iii) for facility of public transport. These three purposes are alternative. If any one of them exists, the power of requisition can be exercised. (2) The order of requisition should be passed in writing. (3) A notice must be served on the owner of vehicle. Where the owner is not readily traceable, or the ownership is in dispute, the notice shall have to be served by publication in the Official Gazette. If all these conditions are fulfilled and the owner, after service of order of requisition in the manner provided in sub-section (2), does not place the vehicle in the possession of the officer or authority concerned, such officer or authority may seize the vehicle from any person who may, for the time being be in possession thereof. We may discuss briefly all these requirements as the existence or fulfilment thereof is condition precedent for the exercise of the power of requisition. 10. We may first discuss the three purposes of requisition. The power of requisition is evidently restricted to three purposes only, namely, (i) for purpose essential to the life of the community; (ii) for maintenance of public order; and (iii) for facility of public transport. These are alternative. For any one of these three purposes, the power of requisition can be exercised. It may be expedient to appreciate the meaning and import of these three expressions. 11. These are alternative. For any one of these three purposes, the power of requisition can be exercised. It may be expedient to appreciate the meaning and import of these three expressions. 11. The first expression is the purpose essential to the life of the community. This expression has neither been defined nor it is capable of any precise definition. The emphasis appears to be on the purpose being "essential to the life of the community". Such purposes may be many and varied. It is neither easier nor necessary to enumerate all of them. What is, however, necessary to decide in each case is whether the particular purpose, for which the vehicle is required, is one which can be said to be essential to the life of the community. If it is so, it will fall within the purview of section 3, otherwise not. 12. The second expression is "for maintenance of public order." By this expression what is intended is the prevention of grave public disorder. It is not the same as maintenance of law and order. Maintenance of law and order means the prevention of disorders of comparatively lesser gravity and of local significance. (B. Sundar Rao vs. State of Orissa, (1972) 3 SCC 11 : AIR 1972 SC 739 ). Public order is an expression of wide connotation. It is, however, not always synonymous with public tranquility. The overlap of public order and public tranquility is only partial. The latter is a much wider expression and takes in many things which cannot be described as public disorder. (Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 ; Superintendent, Central Prison vs. Dr. Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633 , Madhu Limaye vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (1970) 3 SCC 746 : AIR 1971 SC 2486 ). 13. There is a difference between "public order" and "law and order". These two expressions are not interchangeable. Public order embraces more of the community than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from act directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from act directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts to a breach of law and order or public order. (Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228 ). The true distinction between areas of ''public order" and "law and order" lies not in the nature or quality of the act but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. (Dhananjoy Das vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315 ). It depends on potentiality of act to disturb even tempo of community life. (Ram Ranjan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 609 ; Milan Banik vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1214 ; Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1982 SC 1143 ). 14. The third purpose for which a vehicle can be requisitioned is "for facility of public transport". This expression, again has not been defined It has no definite connotation. We are, therefore, to apply the doctrine of Noscitur a socials and ascertain its meaning by reference to the words, phrases or expressions associated with it which, in the instant case are "for purposes essential to the life of the community" and ''for maintenance of public order". It has, therefore, to be understood in the same sense as these two expressions. To illustrate, we may visualise a situation where there is a complete break down of public transport system. Take for example, breach of railway line due to devastating floods. Thousands of passengers might be stranded. The existing transport facilities may not be sufficient to cope up with the emergent situation arising as a result thereof. To facilitate the movement of such stranded passengers, some more vehicles may be needed. Such a situation may fall well within the expression "facility of public transport". Vehicles might also be required by the Government for movement of its officials on law and order duty or for any other Government business, e.g., for providing conveyance, escort or other facilities to visiting VIPs. Such a situation may fall well within the expression "facility of public transport". Vehicles might also be required by the Government for movement of its officials on law and order duty or for any other Government business, e.g., for providing conveyance, escort or other facilities to visiting VIPs. or delegates in Government sponsored conferences etc. But such requirements will not fall within this expression "facility of public transport". These instances are, however, illustrative and not exhaustive. Each situation will have to be decided on its own merits in the light of the foregoing discussion. 15. If the authority is of the opinion that any of the aforesaid/ three conditions exist, it may make an order for requisition of a vehicle under sub-section (1) of section 3. 16. Next in order comes "formation of opinion" about the existence of any of the aforesaid three purposes which is also a condition precedent. The opinion of the officer in this regard, though subjective, must be based on materials on record. Opinion without any supporting material, is no opinion in the eye of law and any order based on such opinion will be ! ad in law. 17. Once the authority concerned forms an opinion in terms of the requirement of sub-section (1), it has to pass the order in writing. Though in the order, it may be sufficient to specify the purpose of requisition, the records must contain the requisite materials on which the order is based so that in the event of challenge it may be possible for the Courts to scrutinize the legality of the order. 18. On an order is being passed under sub-section (1) for requisitioning a vehicle, the notice of requisition must be served on the owner. This requirement is mandatory. It is clear from the language of sub-section (2) itself, which provides that where the owner is not readily traceable or the ownership is in dispute, the order of requisition must be published in the Official Gazette. No other manner of service of notice has been laid down. The notice has to be either served on the owner personally or it has to be published in the Gazette. Till such service or publication, an order of requisition does not take effect and the power of seizure under sub-section (3) cannot be exercised. The expression 'owner' has been defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act. The notice has to be either served on the owner personally or it has to be published in the Gazette. Till such service or publication, an order of requisition does not take effect and the power of seizure under sub-section (3) cannot be exercised. The expression 'owner' has been defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act. It reads : "(b) 'Owner' includes where the person in possession of the vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such a minor, and in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” The definition is inclusive. It specifies the persons who shall also be "owners" in addition to the one in whose name the vehicle is registered. 19. Apparently, the driver of a vehicle or a passenger or a person in possession thereof is not included within the expression 'owner'. This is also clear from the language of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act which uses the expression "person who may for the time being be in possession thereof" in contra-distinction to the word 'owner'. As such, service of notice of requisition under sub-section (1) must be on the owner. No. vehicle can be seized until such service has been affected in the manner laid down above. Service of notice on any other person will be no service in the eye of law. 20. If all the conditions precedent set out above, regarding the purpose of requisition, formation of opinion and service of notice on the owner are not fulfilled, taking possession of the vehicle from the driver or from any other person will be illegal and without any authority of law. 21. We may next deal with the provisions regarding compensation. Section 4i of the Act provides for payment of compensation to the owner when a vehicle is requisitioned under this Act. The determination of tie compensation has been left to the State Government, Necessary guide­lines have been given in sub-section (2) of section 4 in this regard. It has been provided that while determining the compensation the follow­ing f factors shall be taken into consideration- (a) the model, type, class and condition of the vehicle : (b) the loss of earning, if any, sustained by the owner by reason of requisition. It has been provided that while determining the compensation the follow­ing f factors shall be taken into consideration- (a) the model, type, class and condition of the vehicle : (b) the loss of earning, if any, sustained by the owner by reason of requisition. The duty to pay compensation has been cast under sub-section (3) on the officer or authority requisitioning the vehicle. We were told at the Bar that the State Government has issued notifications fixing the rate of compensation for different types of vehicles from time to time. The grievance of the petitioners in these cases mainly is not in regard to the determination of the compensation but against non-payment thereof. Section 5, which deals with release of vehicle from requisition, also requires the officer and or authority to serve a notice in writing on the owner stating the date and place for taking delivery of the vehicle. On and from such date only (he State Government is released from the obligation to pay compensation. But here again the notice has to be served on ''the owner". Otherwise the order of release will not take effect and the vehicle shall continue to be under requisition. The State, in that event, shall not be released of its obligation to pay the requisition compensation to the owner. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 makes the State further liable to make payment on account of compensation for any material damage done to the vehicle during the period of requisition. In the event of any dispute regarding the amount of compensation determined by the Government, there is a provision under section 6 for referring the matter to the Court. This is the broad outline of the provisions of the Act regarding payment of compensation. 22. The specific case of the petitioners in all these cases is that none of the requirements of section 3 or section 4 have been complied with and the possession of the vehicles had been taken forcibly in the purported exercise of powers under the aforesaid provisions without any authority of law. No compensation has even been paid to them. 23. It is necessary at this stage to briefly state the facts of the five individual petitions. First, we may refer to Civil Rule No. 523 of 1983. No compensation has even been paid to them. 23. It is necessary at this stage to briefly state the facts of the five individual petitions. First, we may refer to Civil Rule No. 523 of 1983. The petitioner, Hemanta Kumar Sarmah, is the owner of an omnibus which had been taken away by the Traffic Police Inspector from the route on 10.4.83. An order, purported to be an order of requisition under section 3, was served on the driver in which it was stated that it was required for "maintenance of law and order5'. The petitioner was neither served with the order of requisition nor was he intimated about it even after the vehicle had been taken away by the police. As 27 passengers were scheduled to travel by the said vehicle that very day to Upper Assam and the vehicle did not reach in time, he made enquiries and ultimately could learn about the purported requisition. He moved this Court and by order dated 13.4.83 this Court directed the authorities to release the vehicle if had not been requisi­tioned in accordance with law. The vehicle was released on 15.4.83 by passing an order on the back of the requisition order itself directing the driver to appear and to take delivery. No order of derequisition, as contemplated by law, was passed nor served on the owner. Claim for compensation was filed. But no compensation has been given. In Civil Rule No. 693 of 1985, the petitioner Abdul Rahim Khan, is a stage carriage permit holder, plying his public service vehicle within Gauhati as city bus On 27 9.84 at about 8P.M. the Gauhati City Police requisitioned the said vehicle on the strength of an order dated 18.9.84 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gauhati under section 3 of the Act. The order was printed one which contained the recital that the vehicle was required for the purpose of maintenance of public order. A copy of the order was served on the driver and the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the police. No notice was served on the owner. The vehicle met with an accident the very same night and it got badly damaged. The vehicle was not returned to the petitioner nor any repairs were undertaken. No compensation was paid to the petitioner as contemplated by sections 4 and 5. No notice was served on the owner. The vehicle met with an accident the very same night and it got badly damaged. The vehicle was not returned to the petitioner nor any repairs were undertaken. No compensation was paid to the petitioner as contemplated by sections 4 and 5. Repeated representations by the petitioner himself as well as by the Association failed to achieve any result. It is under such circumstances the petitioner approached this Court. The writ petition in Civil Rule No.1172 of 1983 ha« been filed by one Sri T.C. Agarwalla and 35 other owners of different vehicles. All the petitioners are owners of Tata Mercedez (T.M.B) vehicles which ply as buses on different routes on the strength of stage carriage permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority. Their vehicles were requisitioned from time to time by the police right from the year 1979 onwards. Particulars of such vehicles with the date of requisition, date of release, date of submission of bills etc. have been annexed to the petition. Their main grievance is that no payment of compensation has been made to them despite long lapse of time. Repeated representations were made by the petitioners as also their Association, namely, South East Bus Association, Nagaon wherein it, was stated that the total amount due upto July, 1983 to the 35 members of the Association by way of requisition compensation was to the tune of Rs. 9,14,573/-. In Civil Rule No.1193 of 1983, the writ petition has been filed by the All Assam Motor Transport Association and its General Secretary. As respondents have been arrayed the State of Assam, Chief Secretary, Secretary Transport. Secretary Home, Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police Kamrup. The grievance is the same as has been made out in the various petitions stated above- requisition of the vehicles illegally without complying with any of the requirement of the law and non-payment of compensation for requisition and for damage etc. The last petition before us is Civil Rule No. 1941 of 1989, which has been filed by one Abdul Matin Khan and 53 others. All these petitioners are members of Nagaon-Dhing-Bhuragaon Transport Associ­ation. They are permit holders of Tata Mercedez buses which ply on different routes as stage carriage vehicles. The last petition before us is Civil Rule No. 1941 of 1989, which has been filed by one Abdul Matin Khan and 53 others. All these petitioners are members of Nagaon-Dhing-Bhuragaon Transport Associ­ation. They are permit holders of Tata Mercedez buses which ply on different routes as stage carriage vehicles. Their grievance also is that during the election period, for maintenance of law and order, their vehicles were requisitioned by the police without serving any notice on them. In case of all these petitioners, though the vehicles were released in due course, compensation due to them had not been paid. They have submitted a chart which shows that even for vehicles requisitioned as back in the year 1981 compensation has not been paid as yet. They have also annexed a statement showing the amount due to each of the petitioners individually with full particulars of the vehicle, the period during which the vehicles were under requisition and the amount due to each one of them. The total amount due, it is claimed, is Rs. 13,54,896.10. All efforts to persuade the authorities to pay the compensation made by the petitioners themselves as well as their Association having failed, they approached this Court. 24. The State has not filed any counter in any of these cases. No record has been produced. None of the allegations of the petitioners have been denied. Even in course of argument, the learned Government Advocate found it difficult to repudiate or deny the same. The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that the State Government being short of vehicles, has often to resort to requisition for administrative as well as law and order purposes. It was not asserted, and rightly so, that vehicles are requisitioned only for the purpose specified in section 3 of the Act and for no other purposes. The counsel was also fair not to deny the pendency of claims for compensation as alleged but sought to justify the same on the ground of paucity of funds. It is also not disputed that private vehicles are also requisitioned in the purported exercise of powers under this Act. Counsel also did not deny that there is wide-spread resentment in the public owing to the requisition of private vehicles. He, however, submitted that guidelines had been issued in the matter to meet some of the grievances. It is also not disputed that private vehicles are also requisitioned in the purported exercise of powers under this Act. Counsel also did not deny that there is wide-spread resentment in the public owing to the requisition of private vehicles. He, however, submitted that guidelines had been issued in the matter to meet some of the grievances. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, reiterated his earlier submissions. His grievance was that the problem of unauthorised and illegal requi­sitions still persists. Scant regard is shown for the mandatory require­ments of the law. Compensation is still not being paid for years which is evident from the facts stated in these writ petitions. Paucity of funds, it was stated, cannot be a ground to deny the citizens of their legitimate claim for compensation indefinitely. Counsel pointed out that some time back in course of hearing of a case ( Civil Rule No. 542 of 1989 ) before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and one of us ( Saraf, J. ) the Inspector General of Police in charge of Administration was asked to appear before the Court and explain the situation. That was a case of requisition of a private car. In that case, it was submitted that requisitions were in fact often made without complying with the mandatory requirements of the law and that compensation claims were pending for years together due to shortage of funds. This Court, thereupon, directed the release of all vehicles requisitioned in violation of the requirements of the law within a specified period. The authorities were further directed not to requisition any vehicle in future in such a manner. The autho­rities were also asked to take immediate steps for disposal of all pending claims for compensation. It was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that though the first part of the order had been carried out and vehicles already under requisition released, the other part of the order was not complied with inasmuch as vehicles including private cars still continue to be requisitioned in the very same manner as it used to be in the past and the pending claims remain still pending despite specific direction. It was contended that such actions of the State and its officers are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the Consti­tution. It was contended that such actions of the State and its officers are violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the Consti­tution. The learned counsel submitted that in that view of the matter this Court should decide all the issues raised in this petition finally and issue specific directions, both in regard to requisition as well as payment of compensation. 25. The learned Government Advocate did not object to this prayer of the counsel for the petitioners. He fairly conceded that there is a strong resentment in the general public in Assam on account of requisition of the private cars and other vehicles, in regard to the manner of requisition and non-payment of compensa­tion. It was stated that to examine of the problems arising out of requisition of vehicles, the Government of Assam had constituted a committee by notification dated 21.11.1988. The said committee examined various issues and problems connected with the requisition of private vehicles and submitted a detailed report. On the basis of the said report, the Government had issued instructions to the authorities for minimising hardship to the owners of private vehicles. The learned Government Advocate suggested certain directions that this Court might issue in regard to the requisition as well as payment of compensation. His suggestions briefly are as follows : "(!) The following vehicles should not be seized-(a) vehicles coming from out stations; (b) vehicles carrying passengers; (c) vehicles belonging to professionals like doctors; (d) vehicles engaged in humanitarian causes like providing medical facilities to the needy. (2) The period of requisition of a particular vehicle should be restricted to one week at the most at a time. (3) The work of requisitioning vehicles should be entrusted to very responsible person, preferably a Magistrate, to be performed under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Commissioner. (4) The Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police should ensure the use of the requisitioned vehicle only for the purpose for which it is requisitioned. The moment the purpose is over, it must be derequisitioned. For misuse, the officers concerned should be made personally responsible. (5) The Court may direct the district authorities to consider whether instead of requisition, they should obtain vehicles on hire on daily basis. The moment the purpose is over, it must be derequisitioned. For misuse, the officers concerned should be made personally responsible. (5) The Court may direct the district authorities to consider whether instead of requisition, they should obtain vehicles on hire on daily basis. (6) Agreement may be entered into with the Association of taxi owners so that they can make sufficient number of vehicles available for requisition on rotation basis. (7) Various Government Departments may be directed to notify the requisitioning authorities the number of vehicles that may be made available by them for the purpose of requisition. (8) Time limit might be fixed for payment of requisition compensation and compensation for damage. In the event of failure, interest at specified rate may be made payable." 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, in addition to the contentions advanced earlier, suggested issue of directions not to requisition any vehicle unless the conditions precedent specified in section 3 exist and unless a notice is duly served on the "owner". He, like the Government Advocate also wanted directions to be issued by this Court in the mutter of period of requisition, payment of compensation etc. with a view to mitigating the hardship to the owners of public service vehicles whose only source of income in most of the cases is the earning from such vehicles. 27. We have given our careful consideration to the entire subject matter of requisition of vehicles-both private cars and other vehicles as well as public service vehicles-in the light of the provisions of the Act, the grievances of the petitioners and the suggestions of the learned Government Advocate. We have divided the subject matter for convenience of discussion and decision into two-namely (1) requisition of private vehicles including private service vehicles and (2) requisition of public service vehicles. As the expression "private vehicle" does not appear to have been defined anywhere, it may be appropriate to make it clear that we have in this decision, used this expression to denote all vehicles which are kept for personal use and not for carriage of passengers or goods for hire or reward. Our conclusions in regard to each are as follows. 28. It is admitted position that in the exercise of powers under section 3 of the Act, private vehicles are also requisitioned. Our conclusions in regard to each are as follows. 28. It is admitted position that in the exercise of powers under section 3 of the Act, private vehicles are also requisitioned. Section 3 is couched in wide terms and on a literal interpretation of the expression "any vehicle" the power of requisition can be said to extend to such vehicles also. The question for determination is whether it should be read literally to include e private vehicles or, in the context of the object and scheme of the Act, it should be interpreted in such a manner so as to confine its operation only to public service vehicles (i. e., vehicles other than private vehicles and private service vehicles ). If it is not so interpreted and the power of requisition is held to extend to private vehicles and private service vehicles also, the next question that will arise is whether section 3 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and liable to be struck down. 29. To decide these important issues, we shall first have to ascertain the effect and consequences of requisition of private vehicles on the persons concerned. There is no dispute at the Bar that requisition of a private vehicle do have a very serious effect on its owner. He may suffer great hardship and inconvenience as a result thereof. His even tempo of life itself might be disrupted. The loss suffered by him may be irreparable-beyond compensation in terms of money. It is true that in modern day life, a car or any other vehicle kept for personal use, is not a "luxury"-in most of the cases, it may not be possible even to classify it under the head "comfort". It is, in fact, a "necessity". For most of the owners, it is one of the most essential items, non-availability of which may paralyse their day to day life, work, business or profession. To illustrate, we may visualise few situations. A person may have his children whose school might be located far away - say 6-10 kms away. His personal car might b2 the only means of transport for these children to go to school and come back home. He may be a person in employment. The place of work might be far away. The car might be the only means of conveyance. His personal car might b2 the only means of transport for these children to go to school and come back home. He may be a person in employment. The place of work might be far away. The car might be the only means of conveyance. He might be running a factory, located far away from his residence- his only means of conveyance being the car. He night be an Advocate living far away from the Court. During the day, he may have to attend a number of Courts or Tribunals located in different parts of the city. He may be a businessman-his shop located away from his residence. He may be a doctor who has to attend patients in different parts of the city. There are many people who have to move from one office to another in the town in connection with their profession, vocation, employment or business, One may have to travel to other places in connection with his business or profession. !!e might have made his plans and programmes in his own way-might have few important time-bound works to do during the day-say. to submit a tender, the last date of which might expire the same day. He might have ailing members in his family undergoing treatment at home or in hospital-an expectant mother in an advanced stage-a heart patient who might any moment need immediate medical aid to save his life. For all these purposes, a private car might have been kept in waiting. If such a car is requisitioned, the hardship, suffering and loss that might be caused to him will be irreparable in the true sense-which can never be compensated in terms of money. Requisition of private car or vehicle will thus act very harshly on its owner. 30. We may also conceive a few cases of private service vehicles. A school might be maintaining a bus for carrying children to and from the school. Requisition of such vehicle might result in closure of the school. A company or a firm might keep a vehicle for carrying its employees to and from their residences to factory or office-requisition of it might result in stoppage of business-closure of the factory or office. We do not propose to go on with these illustrations as they are very many. A company or a firm might keep a vehicle for carrying its employees to and from their residences to factory or office-requisition of it might result in stoppage of business-closure of the factory or office. We do not propose to go on with these illustrations as they are very many. In our opinion, the few illustrations we have given above, are enough to demonstrate the serious conse­quences and derelictions effects which might flow from the requisition of private vehicles. Evidently, requisition of private vehicles is not only arbitrary but highly atrocious too. Under the circumstances, if section 3 is interpreted literally to empower the authorities to requisition private vehicles and private service vehicles the question of violation of Article 14 would certainly arise. 31. The scope and ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution is well settled by a chain of decisions of the Supreme Court. We do riot propose to eater into a detailed discussion in that regard. It is now the settled law that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Arbitrariness is antithetic of Article 14. A legislation which does not contain any provision which is discriminatory may yet offend against the guara­ntee of equal protection if it confers upon the executive or administrative authority an unguided or uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of the law. As observed by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Majib (1981) 1 SCC 722 ? "It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the Courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for deter­mining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equally. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality und r Article 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an 'authority' under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an 'authority' under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.” 32. It is equally well-settled that the guarantee against arbitrariness and discrimination contained in Article 14 is not restricted to executive action unsupported by law but it is also available against the arbitrary laws. (See Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 j. That being so, if section 3 of the Act is interpreted literally to include within its scope also the power to requisition private vehicles and private service vehicles, it may have to be struck down as violative of Article 14. We, however, do not think (hat the legislature intended to give the State Government, or its officers so arbitrary a power as to requisition private vehicles with such serious, harsh and far-reaching consequences. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 3 must be read down not to apply to private vehicles and private service vehicles. In somewhat similar situation, such a course v as also adopted by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Pandey vs. The Chancellor, University of Bihar and others, AlR 1968 SC 353 and this Court in Heramba Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam (1990) 1 GLR 1 (1989 (1) GLJ 474) in the instant case, if we so read down section 3 of the Act, there is no reason to strike down the same as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We do so accordingly and read down section 3 of the Act and hold that this section empowers the State Govern­ment only to requisition public service vehicles plying for hire or reward for the purposes specified therein and not private vehicles and private service vehicles. 33. We now take up the issues raised in regard to requisition of public service vehicles namely, vehicles run on hire. We have already discussed the matter at length in the foregoing paragraphs. On a careful consideration of the same, we make the following directions in regard to the requisition of such vehicles and in the matter of compensation. 33. We now take up the issues raised in regard to requisition of public service vehicles namely, vehicles run on hire. We have already discussed the matter at length in the foregoing paragraphs. On a careful consideration of the same, we make the following directions in regard to the requisition of such vehicles and in the matter of compensation. (1) No public service vehicle should be requisitioned unless it is required for any of the three purposes specified in section 3 of the Act. Purposes such as "maintenance of law and order" or "public purpose” are not covered by section 3. Requisitions for any such purpose, therefore, will be illegal and without any authority of law. (2) All the three requirements of section 3 of the Act, namely (i) formation of opinion regarding the existence of the condition prece­dent; (ii) passing of order in writing and (iii) service of notice on the owner must be strictly complied with before the power of seizure of the vehicle conferred by sub-section (3) of section 3 is exercised. (3) The period of requisition should be specified in the notice and, ordinarily, it should not exceed one week at a time, Repeated requisitions of the same vehicle at frequent intervals should be avoided. (4) The compensation determined by the authority should be reaso­nable am] should be determined and paid to the owner within four months from the date of requisition. In case of any dispute regarding the determination of compensation, the amount determined by the authorities as payable must be paid to the owner leaving him free to contest his claim for the balance. The payment of admitted account should in no event be made subject to its acceptance by the owner in full and final settlement of his claim, inasmuch as such condition is not only unfair and unreasonable but smacks of coercion by the State. (5) If the compensation is not paid within four months from the dale of release as aforesaid, additional compensation shall be paid for the period of delay which shall be calculated at the rate of 15% per annum over the amount of compensation determined as payable on the date of requisition. (6) All pending claims must be settled within six months from today by determining compensation and additional compensation as indicated above and the amount so determined paid to the owner within one month thereafter. (6) All pending claims must be settled within six months from today by determining compensation and additional compensation as indicated above and the amount so determined paid to the owner within one month thereafter. (7) Necessary rules should be framed under the Act and in such Rules proper provision should be made for appeal, revision etc. It may also provide for representation before the requisitioning authority. Tim? limit may also be prescribed for disposal of appeal, revision or representation. These are the broad directions that we make in regard to requisition of public service vehicles. 34, To sum up the foregoing discussion, we direct the State Govern­ment and its officers not to requisition any private vehicle and private service vehicle henceforth. All such vehicles, if under requisition, should be released within one week from the date of this judgment. We also direct that the requisition of public service vehicles should be restricted to the purposes specified in section 3 of the Act and made strictly in acco­rdance with law as interpreted above. All pending claims for compensation must be disposed of within 6(six) months in accordance with the directions contained herein. In future all claims should be dealt with utmost expe­dition and within the time frame and in the manner as directed above. 35. With the aforesaid directions, all the five writ petitions are allowed. We make no order as to cost.