Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 825 (PAT)

Amit Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2003-08-07

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. The petitioner is the owner of buses having registration nos. BR-1P/5651 (1998 model) and BR-1P/7451 (1999 model). Each of the two buses has a sitting capacity of 53 passengers. 2. The Deputy Magistrate Incharge, District Control Room, Patna requisitioned the two buses for the Government work of maintaining law and order. Bus no. BR-1P/5651 was requisitioned for a total of seventeen (17) days from January 12 to 16, 1998, February 12 to 16, 1998 and January 19 to 26, 2000. The other bus bearing no. BR-1P/7451 was requisitioned for two (2) days on July 14 and 15, 1999. The buses of the petitioner were, thus, requisitioned for nineteen (19) days in total and he is to receive compensation from the Government for the use of his buses for nineteen (19) days. 3. The concerned authority offered him compensation @ Rs. 220/- per bus per day. The compensation @ Rs. 220/- is offered on the basis of a letter, dated 8.5.1975 from the Joint Secretary, Transport Branch, Public Works, Transport and Public Health Engineering Department to the Dist. Magistrate, Patna. In this letter, the rate of compensation per day for buses having more than 45 seats was fixed at Rs. 220/-. 4. According to the petitioner the rate of compensation is too low and in the years 1998-2000 the amount of Rs.220/- was not sufficient to meet even the daily expenses and maintenance cost of a bus. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the concerned authority(ies) for payment of compensation at reasonable, proper and adequate rates. 5. On the face of it the grievance of the petitioner appears to be well founded. The rate at which compensation is offered to him was fixed in May, 1975. From the letter, it appears that it was issued in the exigencies of the times. In 1975 the Government of the time was facing a serious, popular agitation. Private vehicles were required to be requisitioned for maintenance of law and order and it was in those circumstances that the amount of compensation for requisitioning buses was fixed. After that no order, direction or notification was issued revising or up-dating the rates of compensation. In 1975 the Government of the time was facing a serious, popular agitation. Private vehicles were required to be requisitioned for maintenance of law and order and it was in those circumstances that the amount of compensation for requisitioning buses was fixed. After that no order, direction or notification was issued revising or up-dating the rates of compensation. As noted above the rates of compensation were fixed in 1975 under special and peculiar circumstances and clearly it was not intended that the amounts fixed in 1975 would remain static and unrevised for more than twenty years. It is common knowledge that during the past twenty years there has been massive increase not only in the prices of vehicles but also in all costs and expenses connected with a vehicle, e.g. salary or driver, price of fuel. Government taxes etc. and, therefore, there appears to be no justification in payment of compensation in the year, 1998- 2000 at the rates fixed in the year, 1975. 6. Moreover, from a circular, dated 20.10.1989 issued by the Chief of Operations, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to all the Divisional Managers and Depot Incharges, it appears that in 1989 the Corporation had fixed the rate of Rs. 600/- per bus per day, besides the cost of fuel and mobil charges, for its vehicle (or equivalent capacity) requisitioned by the State or any Government organisation or the railways. 7. On a previous occasion when this case was taken up the court had pointed out to S.C.VI that paying compensation today at the rates fixed in 1975 was evidently quite unfair and unreasonable and he was asked to have a discussion on the matter with the authorities in the Transport Department. Today a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar the contents of which are highly confused. The claim of the petitioner for compensation at higher rates is sought to be resisted on misconceived and irrelevant grounds, without taking a clear stand in the matter. 8. In the counter affidavit it is stated that under section 161 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 the Department of Transport is empowered to fix rates of compensation for vehicles requisitioned or seized for deployment during Parliamen- tary/Assembly/Panchayat elections. 8. In the counter affidavit it is stated that under section 161 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 the Department of Transport is empowered to fix rates of compensation for vehicles requisitioned or seized for deployment during Parliamen- tary/Assembly/Panchayat elections. It is further stated that the department has revised the rates of compensation for vehicles requisitioned for the purpose of election and by circular letter no. 589, dated 22.2.2001 the rate of compensation for a vehicle of 50 or more seats was fixed at Rs. 464/- per day, excluding expenses on P.O.L. But nothing is said in regard to vehicles requisitioned by the Government for purposes other than election, including the work of maintenance of law and order. It is not even stated in the counter affidavit that the department of Transport was not competent or empowered to fix such rates of compensation and the rates of compensation for vehicles requisitioned for other purposes was to be fixed by some other authority or department of the Government. Nevertheless, the claim of the petitioner is resisted on grounds wholly irrelevant to the issue. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it is demanded that the petitioner should submit his income tax return making the following statement : "That the petitioner should submit income tax return in which he shows his income from the buses. Since usually they pay income tax less amount excluding the payment received from the Government for their vehicles." 9. The statement contains an allegation and an insinuation which are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. It is alleged that transporters as a group do not disclose their income correctly and the petitioner being one of them would also not show his income correctly in his income tax return. 10. I fail to see any relevance of this totally unsubstantiated allegation and I feel that an officer of the rank of Joint Transport Commissioner, the deponent in this affidavit should have known better than to make such flippant comment in an affidavit filed before the High Court. This court is not aware of any provisions of law that may empower the State Government to confiscate even temporarily the property even of convicted murderer or a tax evader without the due process of law and acting in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. 11. This court is not aware of any provisions of law that may empower the State Government to confiscate even temporarily the property even of convicted murderer or a tax evader without the due process of law and acting in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. 11. Again, in para 8 of the counter- affidavit it is stated that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation being a Corporation was empowered to fix its tariff and fare structures and thai the rates of Corporation were higher because the over-head expenditure in the Corporation was higher than the expenditure borne by an individual. Once again, the plea is totally irrelevant. The issue here is not the right of the Corporation to fix its tariff and fare structure. The issue is that the State cannot subject an individual citizen to adverse discrimination and the State cannot be allowed to forcibly requisition the vehicle of an individual citizen and to offer him as compensation, an amount three times lower than the amount given to the Corporation and which, in any event, is wholly insufficient and inadequate in todays context. 12. This court had hoped that the respondent authorities will take a reasonable view of the matter and will take this opportunity to revise and update the rates of compensation for vehicles requisitioned by the State Government for purposes other than election. But the counter-affidavit filed in this case leaves the court quite disappointed and dissatisfied. 13. It is, however, made clear that in case the Government fails to revise and update the rates of compensation for requisitioning vehicle, this court in an appropriate case may have to intervene and hold that the requisitioning was itself bad, illegal and confiscatory in nature. 14. So far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it is fully covered by a bench decision of this court in Bharat Prasad Gupta V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1999 (2) P.L.J.R. 293. In that decision the court directed the State to pay compensation @ Rs. 600/- per day per vehicle, that is, the rate of compensation paid for the vehicles of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. 15. Following the division bench decision in Bharat Prasad Gupta, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the District Magistrate, Patna to make payment to the petitioner for 19 days @ Rs. 600/- per day. 600/- per day per vehicle, that is, the rate of compensation paid for the vehicles of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. 15. Following the division bench decision in Bharat Prasad Gupta, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the District Magistrate, Patna to make payment to the petitioner for 19 days @ Rs. 600/- per day. The payment must be made within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in his office. 16. Let a copy of this order be handed over to S.C. VI as prayed by him.