Rajib Parasar vs State of Assam and Others

P.G. Agarwal, J.—Head Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also heard Mr. Mahanta, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.

The broad facts of the case are not in dispute. The Petitioner is the owner of Maruti Van bearing Registration No. AS 12A-5535, and the said vehicle was requisitioned by the State of Assam on 22.3.2001 u/s 3 of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicle Act 1988.

On 25.3.01 the FIR was lodged to the effect that the said vehicle were in the custody of the SP city has been stolen and Dispur P.S. Case No. 228/2001, was registered. Admittedly the vehicle has not been recovered till now more than 2 years have elapsed. The case of the Petitioner is that the vehicle was taken after obtaining loan from the Bank and making repayment by way of instalments and it was the only source of livelihood of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has not been paid required compensation. Bank has instituted a civil suit for realisation of loan amount.

In this case there is no dispute that the vehicle was under requisition and was in the custody of the Addl. SP, City and the fact that the vehicle was stolen is immaterial. It is the State of Assam Respondents to return the vehicle to the Petitioner and in the circumstances stated above, there is no scope for returning the vehicle as it has been stolen and they have not recovered the vehicle for the last 2 years. In this case Petitioner is entitled for compensation. Accordingly we direct the commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to determine the compensation as provided in Section 4 and 5 of the said Act and pay the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order produced before him by the Petitioner. It is needless to say if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the determination of compensation he will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions 6 of the said Act.

Writ petition stands disposed of.