MANOJ THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the Tractor No. BR -23 -5502 and trailor No. BR -23/5504 which belonged to the petitioner and was requisitioned by the respondents for Lok Sabha Election, 1998 and the same was destroyed and damaged in course of General Election.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are not in dispute. In February 1998, petitioner received letter dated 10.2.98 issued by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro cum Election Officer, whereby petitioner was directed to hand over the vehicle. In pursuance to that letter vehicle was handed over and came in custody of the respondents. The said order and the letter was issued by the respondents under purported exercise of power under section 160 of Representation of People. Act, 1951. However, the vehicle in question was not returned to the petitioner nor the respondents informed, him about the whereabouts of the vehicle. Petitioner then gave representation to the respondent no. 3 Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh on 23.2.98 requesting him to return the tractor with trailor which was handed over to the concerned respondent for the purpose of Election. Petitioner then came to know that the tractor with trailor got fully damaged when the terrorists of M.C.C. attacked the same with bomb during the election. Due to the bomb blast several persons have got injured and the tractor and trailor were fully destroyed. Petitioner then came to know that a First Information Report was lodged on 17.2.98, under different sections of Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substance Act and the Arms Act. Petitioner then met the concerned respondent several times for payment of compensation but the same could not be paid. It appears that the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bermo wrote to the Motor Vehicle Inspector Bermo vide letter dated 7.10.98 requesting him to send the detailed damage report of the vehicle in question, so that the petitioner be paid his compensation. A copy of the letter has been annexed as Annexure -7 to the writ application. It is stated that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not sent the report till date for the reasons best known to him. Petitioner thereafter gave representation to the Chief Election Officer, Patna with a copy of the same to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh claiming compensation of Rs.

(3.) I have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Standing Counsel.