Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 797 (GAU)

Shankar Prasad Dey v. State of Assam

2010-10-03

I.A.ANSARI

body2010
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration No.AS-16-2144, was requisitioned, under section 3of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 ('the 1968 Act'), by respondent No. 2, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, on 13.12.1998, for the works of relief and rehabilitation. The vehicle was released by the respondent No. 2 on 3.3.1999. At the time, when the vehicle was released to the petitioner, the vehicle was found in damaged condition and, even the respondent No. 2 herein, while releasing the said vehicle, asked the petitioner, in the order, dated 3.3.1999, aforementioned to contact the insurance company for realization of the amount, which would be required to repair the vehicle. 2. Aggrieved by the fact that the requisitioning authority, i.e., respondent No. 2, was not paying the compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle, the petitioner filed a writ petition, under article226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 1757/ 1999. By order, dated 29.11.2000, the said writ petition was disposed of by holding that the payment of compensation, along with the damage caused to the vehicle, would be paid by the requisitioning authority, i.e., respondent No. 2, and the respondent No. 2 was accordingly directed to make assessment of compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle and to release the vehicle to the petitioner along with the requisition charges, if any. 3. Alleging that the directions, given by the order, dated 29.11.2000, aforementioned, were being not complied with and willfully violated, an application, seeking drawing of a contempt proceeding, was filed by the petitioner. The said application gave rise to Contempt Case (C) No. 220/2001. 4. During pendency of the said Contempt Case, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000 was paid to the petitioner, on 11.7.2003, by the office of the respondent No.2. Out of the said sum of Rs. 1,32,000, a sum of Rs. 92,345 was paid as compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle and the balance amount of Rs. 39,690 was paid as requisition charges for the period from 13.12.1998 to 3.3.1999. The petitioner claims to have received the said amount of Rs. 1,32,000 under protest. The petitioner also claims that the vehicle was repaired by him and the same became fit for being plied on road on 17.9.2003. 39,690 was paid as requisition charges for the period from 13.12.1998 to 3.3.1999. The petitioner claims to have received the said amount of Rs. 1,32,000 under protest. The petitioner also claims that the vehicle was repaired by him and the same became fit for being plied on road on 17.9.2003. The petitioner, however, after assessment of the repairing charges, found that he was entitled to receive, in all, a sum of Rs. 9,22,180. The petitioner accordingly raised a demand, on 3.11.2003, by a letter, issued in this regard, to the State Government, i.e., respondent No. 1. On 10.10.2006, the State Government rejected the petitioner's claim for the enhanced compensation. 5. The petitioner claims that he submitted an application, on 9.4.2010, addressed to the respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, seeking the matter to be referred by the Government to the court, in terms of section 6 of the 1968 Act, but the said application has not yet been disposed of by the Government by making appropriate order referring the petitioner's claim, for enhanced compensation, to the court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The petitioner has, therefore, come to this court with the present application, made under article226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate relief. 7. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that under section 6 of the Vehicles Act of 1968, if the owner of a vehicle is aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined, the owner of the vehicle may make an application to the State Government for referring the matter to the 'court', and the word, 'court', has been denied by section 2(a) to mean 'a Principal civil court of original jurisdiction'. 8. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. 8. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, to examine the petitioner's grievances and, if the petitioner is found aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, which has been paid to him as compensation, respondent No. 1 shall, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, make a reference of the petitioner's claim to the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of section 6 of the Vehicles Act, 1968, and, if such a reference is made, the court shall deal with, and dispose of, the same in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs.