SHANKAR PRASAD DEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration No.AS -16 -2144, was requisitioned, under section 3 of 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 article 226 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.) 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. 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.