NARENDRA KUMAR @ SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUBLIC service vehicles are indiscriminately seized and requisitioned for election work. They are compensated by payment of an amount fixed by the State Transport Commissioner. But, the grievance is that the procedure to get this compensation is too cumbersome, if not impossible, and in most cases it takes several years to get compensation and in several cases people have to forego to get it. The effects of this case are exemplified in all three contingencies. Petitioner 's vehicle was requisitioned for assembly election for the year 2005 and thereafter in the State Panchayat Election and law and order associated with it. He is yet to be compensated and the next election has come.

(2.) THE District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in his counter affidavit, feels (sic -feigns?) ignorance about requisition of petitioner 'svehicle. In rejoinder, petitioner has affixed permits for fuel supply at Sitamarhi to the petitioner 'struck. It clearly establishes that it was the district authorities of Sitamarhi who were holding the vehicle. Similarly, so far as Patna is concerned, for the assembly election all that is said is process of payment has begun (more than three years after vehicles were requisitioned). In one case, the vehicle was requisitioned at Patna for election work, then handed over for law and order work and then ultimately requisitioned by CRPF and then in another district released. Petitioner is at total loss as to whether he would get his compensation from where. The State, on the other hand, is totally insensitive to this. Nothing has been worked out to avoid undue hardship to the transporters, every thing having been left to the discretion of the authorities. The discretion rarely comes without a price paid where vehicles are requisitioned. For strengthening the democratic institution of this country, in elections, in a most undemocratic way the vehicles owners are treated. The Court at this juncture can only suggest that whenever vehicle is requisitioned the vehicle must be issued a logbook with full entries by designated officers and on day to day basis the officers would be obliged to make entries. On release of vehicle from one jurisdiction or one purpose to the other the person in whose authority it was originally seized to the time of its release would give a certificate clearly specifying the duration on requisition and the amount payable alongwith a clear statement as to who would be the authority who would make payment. On such release if it is again requisitioned for another purpose in another jurisdiction the similar process in the same very logbook would continue and the same very certificate would be issued at the end. This would quantify the liability and inform the transporter as to from where payment has to be received. On submission of the said logbook or duly attested copies thereof, payment should be made by the designated authority therein within a month. I hope that the bureaucracy which has the responsibility of framing scheme would adopt such means and would not be insensitive to the issue, which is exemplified in this case before this Court.

(3.) ON behalf of State, it is stated that funds are not a problem. This Court feels that it is the true incentive to do work and exercise discretion that appears to be the problem.