TRIPURA TRUCK OWNERS SYNDICATE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged a notification dated 15.02.2018 and communication dated 03.04.2019 in following background: Petitioner is the Association of Truck Owners of Tripura. Respondent No.1 is State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Finance Department. Respondents No.2 to 4 are the Electoral Officers under the State Election Commission and are responsible for conduct of the State elections. For smooth conduct of the State Assembly Election of Tripura of the year 2018, the said respondents required large number of vehicles on temporary basis. In order to obtain sufficient number of such vehicles, the State Election Commission machinery represented by the respondents No.2 to 4 undertook discussions with various associations registered or unregistered of vehicle owners of different categories. The principal issues of course would be the terms and conditions for hiring such vehicles and of remunerating the vehicle owners for such temporary use by the State Election machinery. On 09.01.2018 a meeting was held between all such vehicle owners' associations including the petitioner Truck Owners' Association and the State Election machinery during which the hiring rates of various categories of vehicles to be used in the ensuing Assembly elections of 2018 were firmed up. The decisions in this regard were reduced in writing and duly signed by a committee comprising of J.E.(Mechanical), PWD (R&B), A.E.(Mechanical), PWD (R&B), Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, Assistant CEO, S.P. (Procurement), Joint Transport Commissioner, Additional District Magistrate (West); and chaired by Additional Secretary, Transport Department. The rates for hiring different vehicles were broken up under different headings such as detention charges within the State, detention charges for interstate movement, night halt charge, and petrol/diesel/CNG charge. Such rates specified for different categories of vehicles were reduced in writing and duly signed by all the above mentioned officials on the same day.

(3.) In the writ petition the petitioner has contended that: