MUKUL BAYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein aggrieved at the inaction of the Respondent Authorities in not returning the vehicle of the Petitioner is compelled to approach this Court for the second time by way of the instant writ petition.

(2.) From a perusal of the materials on record, it reveals that the Petitioner herein had purchased a Maruti Van bearing Registration No.AS 15/3227 at a price of Rs.2,20,000.00 from one Md. Minul Hussain. The Petitioner used the said vehicle as a Taxi for which the petitioner had also obtained a permit. On 16/4/2001, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta vide an order requisitioned the vehicle of the Petitioner in terms with Sec. 160 read with Sec. 166 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951') and thereby directed the Petitioner to report the said vehicle of the Petitioner along with his driver and spare tyres on 17/4/2001 at 8:00 a.m. Thereafter the said vehicle had not been de-requisitioned or returned to the Petitioner, for which the Petitioner had approached the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta vide various representations. As the said representations submitted by the Petitioner beard no result, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2981/2002.

(3.) In the said writ proceedings this Court while issuing notice on 13/5/2002 directed in the interim that the Respondents should release the vehicle of the Petitioner in serviceable condition. Thereupon also the Respondent Authorities did not return the vehicle to the Petitioner, for which the Petitioner not only was deprived of the vehicle but also incurred huge business loss. The said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.2981/2002 was disposed off vide an order dtd. 18/5/2010 observing inter alia, that vide the interim order dtd. 13/5/2002 the final relief was already granted in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition was disposed off in terms with the interim order dtd. 13/5/2002. Thereupon also nothing happened and the Petitioner was compelled to submit representations as well as issue a Legal Notice to the Respondents herein. The representations of the Petitioner as well as the Legal Notice fell into the deaf ears of the Respondents for which the Petitioner had been again compelled to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition in the year 2014.