Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 295 (PAT)

Nirbhay Kumar Singh (Advocate) v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-04

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts in not-shell are that the Jeep bearing No. BR-1P-8121 belonging to Ajay Kumar Singh was obtained by the present petitioner Nirbhay Kumar Singh. On 5.2.2000, the petitioner, who was occupying the jeep was removed from the said occupation, the vehicle was produced before the Vehicle Section in the Collectorate and thereafter the Incharge of the Vehicle Section submitted the report to the then District Magistrate, who in his turn directed deployment of the vehicle for the election duty. The said jeep was used for the period between 5.2.2000 to 29.2.2000. After the election work was over, the jeep was returned back to the petitioner and as submitted by the petitioner a paltry sum of Rs. 5,000/- was offered as compensation for use and occupation of the Jeep. 3. The petitioner submits that the acquisition of the jeep by the police officer/persons belonging to C.R.P.F./R.A.F. was contrary to the direction issued by this Court and as the then District Magistrate without verifying that the vehicle was a private vehicle or not illegally ordered deployment of the vehicle for election work, the said District Magistrate, the State Government, all the officers who had taken the custody/possession of the jeep must be held responsible. The petitioner has also prayed for damages in his favour. 4. The respondent District Magistrate (since retired) has submitted his counter and inter-alia submitted that he has highest regards for the authority of this Court and as the fact that the vehicle was private vehicle was not brought to his notice by anybody including the petitioner, he was justified for deploying the vehicle for election duty. The then Officer Incharge of the said police station has also filed a counter and inter-alia submitted that neither in the petition nor in the legal notice issued before the submission of the writ petition, allegations have been made against the said answering respondents, therefore, he is not required to submit anything further. 5. I have heard the parties. 6. From the earlier order passed by this Court, it would clearly appear that this Court had issued mandate against the State authorities including the Administrative Officers/police authorities that the private vehicle should not be acquired for the purposes of election duty. 7. There is no dispute before me that the vehicle in dispute was a private vehicle. 6. From the earlier order passed by this Court, it would clearly appear that this Court had issued mandate against the State authorities including the Administrative Officers/police authorities that the private vehicle should not be acquired for the purposes of election duty. 7. There is no dispute before me that the vehicle in dispute was a private vehicle. The only defence raised by the District Magistrate is that neither the petitioner nor any one else submitted before him that the vehicle was a private vehicle and the same could not be seized or acquired for its deployment towards the election duty. 8. After going through the contents of the affidavit submitted by the District Magistrate, I am unable to concede to the submission raised by him. True it is that during the period of election etc. pressure works on the authorities but that does not give them licence to commit illegalities. When a vehicle is produced before the vehicle section (which in its turn is a section controlled by the District Magistrate himself) it is the duty of the vehicle section to inform the District Magistrate that a particular vehicle has been seized/acquired. It is also the duty of the District Magistrate in case of non reporting, to enquire from the vehicle section that the said vehicle is a private vehicle or is a commercial vehicle. In the present case the District Magistrate tried to put the burden/blame on the head of the petitioner by saying that no chit of paper was produced by them before the District Magistrate to show that the vehicle was a private vehicle. In the opinion of this Court such a defence is not available to the District Administration or to the District Magistrate. 9. When this Court had already issued direction to all concerned that private vehicle was not to be acquired/seized for election duty then the District Magistrate/police/State Government were duty bound to see that the vehicle seized and produced before the competent authority are not private vehicles. The District Magistrate has failed in his duty and in fact he committed breach of the order passed by this Court. The District Magistrate has failed in his duty and in fact he committed breach of the order passed by this Court. At one point of time I wanted to issue show cause notice to the District Magistrate for his action in disobeying the order passed by this Court, but as he has retired, I do not consider present to be a fit case for issuing such a notice. However, I dispose of the petition with a direction to the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to the petitioner as demages. The then District Magistrate personally shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) to the petitioner as damages as in the opinion of this Court, the said District Magistrate has not only violated the order of this Court, but has not discharged the official duty in a manner which was expected of him. The authority/State Government and District Magistrate shall pay the amount to the petitioner within three weeks from today. If the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within the period aforesaid, it will be taken to be serious lapse on his/their part and the authority concerned may be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 10. The petition is disposed of.