TRIPURA BUS SYNDICATE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by Tripura Bus Syndicate, a body registered under the Trade Union Act having its registered office at Agartala, through its General Secretary.

(2.) PETITIONER by this petition is challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 1 under sanction Memo No. 1764-63/f. 4 (8)/dm/w/accts/89-90, dated February 20, 1990 and Memo No. 1764/67/f. 4 (8)DM/w/accts/89-90, dated February 20, 1990, being annexures 4 and 5 to the said writ petition. The petition discloses that during Parliament election of 1989 a large number of vehicles were requisitioned by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the power conferred upon him under section 160 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 vide Notification No. F. 14 (2)GA/77, dated November 30, 1989, issued by the respondent No. 1. Pursuant to such requisition orders a large number of vehicles of different categories belonging to different operators were produced before the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, with the driver in the running condition. The respondent No. 2, issued instruction to the driver of the vehicle and asked them to take delivery of the Log Book for the purpose of noting down the mileage of the vehicle. According to the petitioner the rate on account of hiring of the said vehicles were fixed by a letter dated November, 8, 1989, issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. The said letter November, 8, 1989, reads as follows :

(3.) MR . Deb, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner at no stage transferred the vehicle or any right thereunder for any purpose to the respondents. The vehicle at all material time remained under the control, supervision and ownership of the petitioner through its driver who was the employee of the petitioner. At no stage the respondent, i. e. , Electoral Officer, put up any plea of ownership of the right in the transfer of the said vehicle before the owner or operators. It was only understood that the order contained in the requisition order only requisition of the said vehicle for the purpose of inspection of polling stations and transport of ballot boxes and polling personnel to and from polling stations and for transport of police forces for maintaining law and order during the conduct of election. As such the operators and owners were asked to place their vehicle for transacting the aforesaid purpose and rate was fixed soon thereafter by the Chief Electoral Officer who has specifically stated in the order passed on February, 8, 1989, that the Government of Tripura has fixed the rate on hiring charges of different account of private vehicles to be used for the ensuring Lok Sabha Election. A look at the provision of 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 will show that even a premises immovable property could be requisitioned, so also a motor or animal for the purpose of any duty in connection with election. Such orders have been passed by the authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to conduct the election smoothly and fairly in the public interest. There is no intention under the provision of the said Act to acquire any right in the property either on long or short term basis. The idea that a property or vehicle be transferred with the right to use of such property was far from tenor and meaning of the provisions of section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The said provision of section 160 has only been passed so that the trucks, motor or jeep operators during the need of the election may not refuse to hire the vehicle to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Central Government passed the said provision of section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By requisitioning the property under the provision of section 160 no right is being transferred or use of any goods by way of transfer or otherwise. Further urged that at no stage there was only transfer of any property or any right to use the same was given to the respondents. The vehicle remained under the total control and custody of the petitioner through its driver while the same was run for election purposes as per the direction of the election officers. At no stage or at any time the said vehicle in question was transferred in favour of the respondents with a right to use the same for any purpose. There were no document or agreement executed by or between the respondents or the petitioner whereby any transfer of any property or the right to use thereof was given by the operators to the respondents. It was pure and simple a hiring transaction between the petitioner and the respondents and the respondents are bound to pay full hiring charges at the end of the period when the said vehicles were released. The question of payment of any sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, does not arise. The amended provision of section 3 or the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1989 has no application whatsoever in the instant case.