UMA SHANKAR KESHARWANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question tenability of an order dated 22.8.2012 and certain communications dated 4.10.2012 issued by respondents No. 3 and 4 in the matter of claiming certain damages from the petitioner for loss caused to the State Exchequer due to burning of a truck carrying certain 'Bardanas' (Gunny Bags), this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) FACTS in brief which are available on record goes to show that the petitioner is Proprietor of an establishment named "Niraj Roadlines", Sagar and was awarded a contract for 'Handling a Long Route Transport' by the M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. As per the contract the petitioner was required to load/unload/stack the 'Bardanas' (Gunny Bags) from Railway Rake Point Sagar and transport the same to the various destination points as may be required by the respondents. The contract agreement is Annexure P/1 and there is no dispute that the contract was awarded and in pursuance to the contract the petitioner was performing the work. However, on 17.5.2012 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tikamgarh passed an order and acquired the truck for Government purposes. The number of the Truck was Truck No. UP -93 -E -8757 and this was done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 160 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The vehicle in question belong to one Sangita Gupta of Jhansi and along with the said vehicle various other vehicles of other Contractors was also acquired/requisitioned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the petitioner was in possession of this truck and was using it for execution of his contract. A copy of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.5.2012 is Annexure P/3. On 17.5.2012 apart from this truck various other trucks were also attached/requisitioned or acquired by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as is evident from the list Annexure P/5.

(3.) IN Truck No. UP -93 -E -8757 transportation was ordered likewise and one Shri H.K. Bilgaiya, Rural Agriculture Development Officer, Tikamgarh was deputed to go along with the truck to ensure its delivery to its destination. It seems that in between Tikamgarh and Kundeshwar, the truck caught fire and the entire Bardanas were destroyed. As a result now the amount of loss caused to the Government is assessed at Rs. 10,65,000/ - and the amount is being recovered from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that for the loss caused to the Government and the fire that took place in the truck, the petitioner was not responsible as neither the petitioner was in the truck, it was not in his custody or possession when the accident took place nor is the petitioner responsible for the accident. Referring to the documents and material available on record in this regard, particularly the enquiry report with regard to the fire in question available on record as Annexure P/7 and the Panchanama Annexure P/6, Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel argued that in this report it is clearly indicated that the truck all of a sudden caught fire. The driver and the occupants of the truck did not know about the fire. It was only when a motorcycle rider who came from behind informed the driver about the fire, that the truck was stopped and the action taken for putting the fire off. Referring to the enquiry report and material available on record, it is the case of the petitioner that once the truck was taken over by the Government authorities and the material was being transported in the truck after such acquisition by the Government Officers under their supervision and control, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the loss caused to the State Government and the action taken for recovery of the amount from the petitioner is unsustainable.