Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 534 (JHR)

Ranchi Bus Owners Association v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-30

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the Ranchi Bus Owners Association challenging the notification dated 30.8.1999 issued by the Secretary-cum-State Transport Commissioner fixing the compensation/charge for the buses engaged during 1999 Parliamentary Election. 2. The buses of the members of the petitioner-Association were requisitioned for the purposes of Parliamentary Election. The Secretary-cum-State Transport Commissioner issued the impugned letter dated 30.8.1999 fixing the charges for the buses at the rate of Rs. 442/- per day per bus in respect of those buses which have the capacity of 50 seats or more. 3. The case of the petitioner is that against the said arbitrary fixation of charges the petitioner raised objection and requested that in no case the charges shall be less than Rs. 1500/- per day per bus in respect of the buses having capacity of 50 seats, but the respondents are not considering the representation of the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the State Transport Commissioner, it is stated that the rates for the passenger buses have been determined with an intention that the bus owners should not charge fare in excess of that from the passengers. The rates determined for the vehicles requisitioned in the election is inclusive of fuel, lubricants etc. and is meant to compensate the vehicle owners for its placement during election. 5. Mr. A. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure 5 to the Writ Application which is an office order dated 13.11.1999 issued by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation wherein they decided to fix Rs. 1000/- as fare in addition to fuel expenses in the event the buses of the Corporation are requisitioned by the State Govt. for maintaining law and order. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bharat Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar, reported in 1999 (2) PLJR. 293 and submitted that in similar circumstance a sum Rs. 600/- was allowed as compensation charges for the buses requisitioned by the Govt. for maintaining law and order. 6. Section 160 of the Representation of People Act confers power to the State Govt. to requisition any vehicle, vessel for animal, as the case may be, in connection with an election held within the State. 600/- was allowed as compensation charges for the buses requisitioned by the Govt. for maintaining law and order. 6. Section 160 of the Representation of People Act confers power to the State Govt. to requisition any vehicle, vessel for animal, as the case may be, in connection with an election held within the State. Section 161 of the said Act deals with payment of compensation. Sub-section (2) of Section 161 of the said Act provides that in case of requisition of the vehicle in pursuance of Section 160 by the State Govt. the owner of the vehicle shall be paid compensation which shall be determined by the State Govt. on the basis of the fare or rates prevailing in the locality for the hire of such vehicles. 7. In Bharat Prasad Guptas case (supra) the vehicle was requisitioned and the owner of the vehicle was paid charges at the rate of 220/- per day on the basis of Govt. order issued on 7.5.1975. It was held by the Division Bench that the rate of charges/compensation fixed by the Govt. in 1975 could not have been made applicable in the year, 1991. It was further held that as the State Govt. has already paid to the Transport Corporation a higher rate for the requisition of the corporations buses, the aggrieved persons should also be paid the same rate. 8. In the instant case, in the letter dated 30.8.1999 Rs. 442/- prescribed as charges per bus does not appear to be on any basis. Nothing has been mentioned in the letter as to the basis of fixation of rate of charges for the requisition of the vehicles. 9. Having regard to the fact that the vehicles were requisitioned in 1999, the rate of charges prescribed in the impugned letter dated 30.8.1999 is much below the prevailing rate and is without any basis. The petitioner is entitled to get atleast Rs. 1000/- per day in respect of their vehicles having capacity of 50 seats. The said rate of compensation would be quite just and reasonable. 10. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and the impugned office order fixing Rs. 442/- by way of charge for the requisition of the vehicles per day having seating capacity of 50 is quashed. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to get Rs. The said rate of compensation would be quite just and reasonable. 10. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and the impugned office order fixing Rs. 442/- by way of charge for the requisition of the vehicles per day having seating capacity of 50 is quashed. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to get Rs. 1000/- per day for those vehicles which have seating capacity of 50.