ORDER The petitioner is the bus owners association and it has come to the court with the grievance in regard to the rates of compensation fixed by the State Government for vehicles requisitioned for election purposes in exercise of powers under section 160 of the Representation of the Peoples Act ('the Act', hereinafter). According to the petitioner, the compensation was fixed at very low and completely unrealistic rates having no regard to the "fares of rates prevailing in the locality for the hire of such vehicles," requisition of vehicles at the rates fixed by the State Government caused heavy loss to their owners. The action of the State Govt. was, thus, quite unjust, unfair and unreasonable. It was also confiscatory and in violation of the legislative mandate under section 161 of the Act. 2 On behalf of the petitioner it is pointed out that the rates of compensation were last fixed for the parliamentary election, 2004 vide letter no. 992, dated 31.3.2004 issued under the signature of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar by the Cabinet (Election) Department of the State Government. A copy of the letter is at Annexure 5. By this letter the rates of compensation were fixed in the following manner: (i) Large vehicle Rs. 345/- per day. (2) Small vehicle Rs. 210/- per day. (3) Bus Rs. 433/- per day. 3. The petitioner apprehends that compensation for vehicles requisitioned for the Bihar Assembly Election, 2005 shall also be paid at those rates and pleads that the amount of Rs. 433/- per day for a bus was totally inadequate. In the writ petition it is prayed that compensation for requisitioned vehicles should be fixed at the following rates: Categories of vehicles Proposed Rates 1. Bus (50 seater) Rs.1,500/- per day. 2. Mini bus Rs.900/- per day 3. Truck Rs.900/- per day 4. Car Rs.360/- per day 5. Trekker Rs.360/- per day 6. Auto Rickshaw Rs.180/- per day 7. Tractor Rs.400/- per day 4. The respondent authorities seem to take an evasive stand and one department of the State Govt. tries to shift the responsibility on the other. In fact the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits filed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Transport Commissioner prima facie appear to be irreconcilable. Tractor Rs.400/- per day 4. The respondent authorities seem to take an evasive stand and one department of the State Govt. tries to shift the responsibility on the other. In fact the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits filed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Transport Commissioner prima facie appear to be irreconcilable. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Electoral Officer it is stated as follows "That it is further stated that Cabinet (Election) Deptt., Govt. of Bihar is responsible for payment of compensation of vehicles requisitioned for election purposes at the rates decided by the Transport Deptt., Govt. of Bihar. The Cabinet (Election) Deptt. or the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna is not responsible for fixation of comensation of rates of vehicles requisitioned for election purposes.” 5. On the other hand the Transport Commissioner in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf stated in para 6 as follows: "Since the vehicle is requisitioned under the instructions of the Chief Electoral Officer, and the order of requisition is executed by the concerned District Election Officers and necessary fund for payment of compensation is allocated by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Transport Department may play advisory role in determination of the rate of compensation, provided the same is referred to by the Chief Electoral Officer. In the past whenever Transport Department received such request the rate of compensation was fixed by the Transport Department. For example, the Transport Department had fixed rate of compensation for payment at Election 2001 vide letter no. 589 dated 22.02.2001 only when such request was made by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar vide letter no.581 dated 08.02.2001. However, no request/proposal was received in the Department as such the Transport Department did not fix any rate of compensation for the last parliamentary election 2004 and the instant assembly election 2005." 6. The court found that the pleadings of the two concerned respondents were quite improper and unsatisfactory and pointed out to Mr. R.K. Dutta. S.C. IV representing the State that under section 161 (2) of the Act it was the statutory duty and obligation of the State Govt. to determine the amounts of compensation for vehicles requisitioned under section 160 of the Act. Mr. Dutta was unable to deny this position. Then on a prayer made by him the case was adjourned. On the next date Mr. to determine the amounts of compensation for vehicles requisitioned under section 160 of the Act. Mr. Dutta was unable to deny this position. Then on a prayer made by him the case was adjourned. On the next date Mr. Dutta submitted that the respondents were unable to say anything substantial or concrete in the counter affidavits because the process of fixation of the rates of compensation was still at a very preliminary stage. He stated that though a proposal was mooted by the Transport Department, it was still to receive the approval of the Transport Minister. Even without his approval the rates proposed by the Transport Department were sent to the Finance Department where the proposal was lying. He stated that after the approval of the Departmental Minister and the Finance Department the matter may further go for approval before the Cabinet Sub Committee on Economic Affairs. In the present state when the previous Government had lived out its term and another government was to be formed after- the election, even Mr. Dutta was not prepared to hazard a guess when the proposal made by the Transport Department would attain finality and become a decision of the State Government. That is to say, the vehicle owners will either not get compensation for their vehicles for a long time awaiting the determination of rates by the Government or they will get compensation at low rates on the basis of the determination in the past. In these circumstances yet another issue is thrust upon this court simply due to the default of the State Govt. in discharging its statutory responsibility and obligation. 7. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the rates of compensation for private vehicles fixed by the State Govt. would appear very low for more reasons than one. First, the rates of motor vehicle taxes were revised in this State with effect from 16.7.2000 and on revision the motor vehicle taxes in this State were among the highest in the country. Yet the rates of compensation were far lower in comparison to the rates fixed by several other neighbouring States where the motor vehicle taxes were much lower than this State. Secondly, the State Govt. was paying compensation at a much higher rates for the vehicles of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation requisitioned for law and order and/or election purposes. 8. Secondly, the State Govt. was paying compensation at a much higher rates for the vehicles of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation requisitioned for law and order and/or election purposes. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a division bench of this court in Bharat Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (2) PLJR 293 had directed the State Government for payment of compensation for a private vehicle at the same rate as applicable to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In the case of Bharat Pd. Gupta his vehicle was seized for the purpose of law and order duty in the year, 1991. He was given compensation @ Rs.220/- per day on the basis of a Government order issued on 7.5.1975. It was pointed out to the court that the Government was paying Rs. 600/- per day for the use of the vehicles of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In those facts a bench of this court gave the following orders: "4. That apart, as the State Government has paid to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per day in the year 1991, we are of the view that the petitioner should have been also paid at the same rate, who has been paid only Rs.220/- per day. "5. Accordingly, we allow this writ application and direct the District Magistrate, Patna, respondent no.2 to make further payment to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.380/- per day, for the period of 51 days, i.e. from 26th October, 1989 to 15th December, 1989. The said payment must be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order," 9. The decision in Bharat Pd. Gupta was followed by me in Amit Kumar Vs. State & Others, 2003 (4) PLJR 328 . 10. More recently the issue of the rates of compensation under section 161 of the Act came up before a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Ranchi Bus Owner's Association Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2002 (3) JCR 175 (Jhr). In that case too the Ranchi Bus Owners Association had raised the plea that the amount of Rs. 442/- per day per bus as compensation for the requisitioned buses was very low and unreasonable. The Jharkhand High Court, following the decision in Bharat Pd. State of Bihar and others, 2002 (3) JCR 175 (Jhr). In that case too the Ranchi Bus Owners Association had raised the plea that the amount of Rs. 442/- per day per bus as compensation for the requisitioned buses was very low and unreasonable. The Jharkhand High Court, following the decision in Bharat Pd. Gupta (supra) directed for payment of compensation at the same rates at which payment was made for the vehicles of the Road Transport Corporation. The relevant paras from the decision are as follows: "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 Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 293 and submitted that in similar circumstance a sum of Rs. 600/- was allowed as compensation charges for the buses requisitioned by the Govt. for maintaining law and order. "6. x x x x x x. 7. In Bharat Prasad Gupta's 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 Corporation's 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 vehiclers. "9. "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 vehiclers. "9. Having regard to the fact that the vehicles were requisitioned in 1999, the rate of charges prescribed in the impugned letter dated 30.3.1999 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." 11. The aforesaid three decisions in Bharat Pd. Gupta (by a division bench), in Amit Kumar by me and in Ranchi Bus Owners' Association clearly lay down that the amount of compensation paid to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is a good and proper indicator for fixing the amounts of compensation for private vehicles and the rates of compensation for private vehicles cannot be lower than the rates for the vehicles of the Binar State Road Transport Corporation. 12. Coming now to the first point raised by the petitioner, it may be noted that the decision in Bharat Pd. Gupta (supra) was passed on 26.3.1999 in regard to the seizure of the vehicle in the year, 1991. Thereafter there was a very stiff revision of rates of motor vehicle taxes with effect from 16.7.2000. The motor vehicle taxes with buses with a wheel base of 205 and sitting capacity of 53 ranges from Rs.11000/- to Rs.32000/- per quarter depending upon the distance travelled. On other types of buses the tax is levied at the rate of Rs. 300/- per seat per quarter. As against this in the State of Jharkhand the motor vehicle taxes for buses are still very low at the flat rate of Rs. 6400/- for every quarter. There the rates of compensation have been fixed, on the basis of the court's decision in Ranchi Bus Owners' Association, as follows: "1. Bus (50 seats or more)-Rs.1000/- per day (as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court). 2. Mini bus - Rs.600/- per day. 3. Truck - Rs.600/- per day. 4. Car - Rs.240/- per day. 5. Trekker - Rs.240/- per day. 6. Auto Rickshaw - Rs.120/- per day. 7. Bus (50 seats or more)-Rs.1000/- per day (as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court). 2. Mini bus - Rs.600/- per day. 3. Truck - Rs.600/- per day. 4. Car - Rs.240/- per day. 5. Trekker - Rs.240/- per day. 6. Auto Rickshaw - Rs.120/- per day. 7. Tractor - Rs.330/- per day." 13. Further, it stated in the writ petition and not denied in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that in the State of Punjab by notification, dated 18.4.2000 the amount of compensation for a bus is fixed at Rs.3000/- per day. The motor vehicle tax there is said to be Rs.36000/- quarterly. In the State of West Bengal by notification, dated 25.4.2001 the amounts of compensation for a bus and a mini bus were fixed at Rs.894/- and 766/- respectively. The tax there is at the rate of Rs.2569/- per quarter. In the State of Orissa the rate of compensation were fixed in July, 1999 as follows: "Standard bus (31 to 50 seats)-Rs.900/- per day. Mini bus (17 to 30 seats) - Rs.600/- per day. Mini bus (16 seaters less) Rs. 300/per day.” 14. The petitioner has also given the break up of the cost incurred by the owners on maintaining and running a bus. This includes apart from Government taxes, the wages of the driver, conductor, cleaner and insurance premium etc. According to the petitioner's calculation the amount spent in maintaining a bus comes to Rs. 1100/per day. 15. On hearing counsel for the parties and on taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances it appears to this court that the amount of Rs.1200/- per day would be a reasonable amount of compensation for a bus requisitioned under section 160 of the Act. 16. It is, therefore, held and found that the vehicle owners would be entitled to receive compensation for their vehicles at the following rates: 1. Bus (50 seaters) - Rs.1200/- per day. 2. Mini bus - Rs.720/- per day. 3. Truck - Rs.720/- per day. 4. Car - Rs.290/- per day. 5. Trekker - Rs.290/- per day. 6. Auto rickshaw - Rs.145/- per day. 7. Tractor - Rs.320/- per day. 17. All the concerned respondents are directed to make payments for vehicles requisitioned under section 160 of the Act for election purpose for the Bihar Assembly Election 2005 at the above rates. 18. 4. Car - Rs.290/- per day. 5. Trekker - Rs.290/- per day. 6. Auto rickshaw - Rs.145/- per day. 7. Tractor - Rs.320/- per day. 17. All the concerned respondents are directed to make payments for vehicles requisitioned under section 160 of the Act for election purpose for the Bihar Assembly Election 2005 at the above rates. 18. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.