JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for compensation, with the following reliefs: It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordship be pleased to: (i) issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the case of the Petitioner for payment of compensation for the lost of vehicle and filled gas cylinder on 23.08.2001 at Tadubi Village by the antisocial elements. (ii) make rule absolute. (iii) pass an order/direction which Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. (iv) issue an order make an enquiry of the arson of the said vehicle and 300 gas cylinders. 3. It is stated that the Petitioner was the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MN 01/4959 and the owner of the vehicle entered into a contract with the Indian Oil Corporation (Assam Oil Division) to carry gas cylinders from Assam to Manipur on the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract agreement. A copy of the agreement was subsequently made available before this Court and the relevant portion dealing with insurance reads as follows: E INSURANCE: Contractor/s will be required to have a comprehensive Insurance policy for each vehicle including cargo from Public Sector Insurance Company and keep such policy in force at all times to cover all risk of whatever nature. The policy should have specific mention for overage of any damage caused by the truck/sto Corporation's/Public property/Person/s etc during pendency of the contract. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that on 23.08.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. when the vehicle of the Petitioner was coming from Assam to Imphal, Manipur,with 300 filed loaded gas cylinders for unloading at Imphal, some unknown armed youths stopped the vehicle near Tadubi Village under Mao Police Station on the National Highway No. 39 and burnt the vehicle along with the gas cylinders. As a consequence thereto, the vehicle of the Petitioner was completely damaged and all gas cylinders burst and exploded. Ultimately, Mao Police Station registered FIR Case No. 13(8)/2001 under Sections 148/149/325/436/427 IPC and 7 Cril Law Amendment Act, 1930. 5. As a consequence thereto, the vehicle of the Petitioner was completely damaged and all gas cylinders burst and exploded. Ultimately, Mao Police Station registered FIR Case No. 13(8)/2001 under Sections 148/149/325/436/427 IPC and 7 Cril Law Amendment Act, 1930. 5. It is further stated that the burnt vehicle of the Petitioner was inspected by the concerned District Transport Officer and submitted a report to the Officer-in-Charge of Mao Police Station. In the instant case, the Petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- being the value of the vehicle and Rs.3,29,889/- being the price of the gas and cylinders. In all, a sum of Rs.10,89,778/- was demanded by the Petitioner from the Manipur Government. 6. Disputing and controverting the claims and contentions of the Petitioner, a detailed affidavit has been filed by the State Government wherein it is stated that there was an economic blocked of National Highway 39 called by some local youths in connection with some demands and to ensure smooth supply of essential items to the State and its people, security was provided by the State Government to escort the vehicles from the border of Nagaland i.e. Khujama, including the buses coming from Dimapur towards Imphal in a group/batch. None of the vehicles within the security arrangement was allowed to proceed unless there was go ahead signal from the security. However, on 23.08.2001, one truck bearing No. MN 01-4945 loaded with 300 filled cylinders driven by one Shri E. Dhaja Singh, without informing the security personnel, left Khujama at his own risk. The said driver was fully aware of the economic blocked on NH 39 and he neither informed the Mao Police nor asked for security to escort his vehicle. Thereafter, the incident of burning of the truck and gas cylinders took place. 7. It is further submitted that the State Government deployed District police personnels to maintain law and order properly despite communal tension, bandh and economic blocked by providing security to the vehicle as well as to needy ones. In the instant case, the driver proceeded with his truck without informing the security personnel on NH 39 and as such there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the security personnel for causing the incident during the economic blocked. 8. In the instant case, the driver proceeded with his truck without informing the security personnel on NH 39 and as such there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the security personnel for causing the incident during the economic blocked. 8. In one of the rejoinder affidavits filed by the Petitioner, it is stated that the driver of the vehicle was not aware of the economic blocked. Looking into the matter in its entirety, it would be difficult for the Court to believe and accept the statement given by the Petitioner that the driver was not aware of the economic blocked of National Highway 39 at the relevant point of time and this statement is nothing but absurd. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is admitted by the Petitioner that 15 oil tankers were burnt down by the miscreants on National Highway 39 between Mao to Tadubi village and some of the drivers also died. 9. In connection with the burning of 15 oil tankers, a writ petition No. 7758/2001/1732/2001 was filed by an Association formed by the affected owners/persons demanding for compensation by or in the name of the Association on the grounds, amongst others, that the Minister in-charge of Food and Civil Supplies had given a commitment in writing to compensate the loss suffered by the members of the Association. A Single Bench of this Court took the Minister's commitment as a decision of Government and directed the Government to pay compensation for the loss caused to the vehicle and the petroleum products, which came nearly about 2 crores. 10. The aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge was appealed against in W. A. No. 13/2005 on different grounds. One of the grounds is that in order to make any payment from the State Exchequer, Finance Department must be consulted with in terms of Rule 34A of the Rules of Business or with the approval of the State Cabinet. In absence of fulfilling the two conditions, no Minister, how high he may be, has authority to pay a single paise from the State Exchequer. In one of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, it was held that compliance of provisions dealing with finance was mandatory and any violation thereto would render the action of the authority illegal and without jurisdiction. In one of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, it was held that compliance of provisions dealing with finance was mandatory and any violation thereto would render the action of the authority illegal and without jurisdiction. This case of the Apex Court was thoroughly discussed in the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above. 11. Before the Division Bench, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that whatever loss suffered by the petrol tankers were to be compensated by the Insurance Company because in the agreement entered between the contractor and the IOC, a comprehensive insurance policy was a condition stipulated and compliance of the condition can only enable the contractor to carry the goods belongs to the IOC. Therefore, the Court took view that whatever loss incurred by the truck owner/driver could have been suitably compensated under the scheme of comprehensive insurance policy. Thus, there is no role to be played by the State Government in the commercial ventures entered between the contractors and the IOC. 12. The decision of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case directing the State Government to pay compensation was set aside by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 13/2005 and the same is reported in 2007 (3) GLT 747: State of Manipur v. All Manipur Petroleum Products Transporters Association and Ors. It is also informed that SLP taken by the writ Petitioner therein against order dated 14.3.2007 passed in W. A. No. 13 of 2005 was also dismissed by the Apex Court. 13. Mr. Reisang, learned Government Advocate submits that this case is a left out case and this should have been decided long time back in the light of the decisions of the Division Bench passed in WA No. 13/2005 inasmuch as both the cases are of burning of oil tankers and vehicle carrying Gas cylinder during the blockade at National Highway 39. In both the cases, the burnt tankers and the vehicle, in the present case, did not follow the security arrangement and parameters thereto and they simply slipped out of the security arrangement and proceeded at their own risk for reasons best known to them. Mr. In both the cases, the burnt tankers and the vehicle, in the present case, did not follow the security arrangement and parameters thereto and they simply slipped out of the security arrangement and proceeded at their own risk for reasons best known to them. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate further submits that Section 147(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a public vehicle is compulsorily required to be insured, may be in addition to the comprehensive insurance policy which was one of the conditions of the agreement between the Petitioner and the IOC. 14. Admittedly, Petitioner was under written agreement to carry gas cylinders on behalf of the IOC from Assam to Imphal on payment of carriage charges. The agreement itself is very comprehensive to take care of all possible events and the parties in the contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into voluntarily among themselves. In the aforesaid process, the Government has no role to play and no legal obligation can be claimed the Petitioner from the Government. This matter has been heard on 3 or 4 occasions and there has been a specific question from the Court to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner has ever received compensation in terms of the comprehensive insurance policy but the learned Counsel has not made any reply to this query of the Court. This leaves the Court to infer that the Petitioner had not come before the Court in clean hand and with clean mind. 15. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner has failed to establish any legal obligation for the Government to compensate for any loss suffered during the blockade, in addition to the compensation entitled to under the comprehensive insurance policy as discussed above. The writ petition has no merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.