1. Heard Shri K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri R. K. D. Choudhury, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

2. An order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur in Misc (Reference) Case No. 42/2009 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Though initially the case was registered as a writ petition, vide an order dated 14.10.2015 passed by this Court, the same was directed to be treated as a Civil Revision Petition.

3. The facts of the case can be put in a nut shell in the following manner.

4. The petitioner is the registered owner of two vehicles (Buses) bearing registration No. AS-12A-1269 and AS-12A-3081 and claims to be earning his livelihood from plying the aforesaid two buses. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicles were requisitioned on 11.06.2000 and 24.06.2000 respectively and were handed over to the Army for its operations. In this connection, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur had issued a formal requisition order dated 26.06.2000 with the effective date as 24.06.2000.

5. As the request of the petitioner to hand over the vehicles was not paid any heed to, he had instituted two writ petitions in this Court being WP (C) 2387/2002 and WP (C) 2388/2002 whereupon this Court vide order dated 24.04.2002 had remanded the matters to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur to determine the damage and compensation. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur had asked for all the necessary documents to determine the compensation. However, the petitioner approached this Court once again by filing a writ petition being WP (C) 1403/2003 and this Court vide order dated 07.03.2003 had directed the petitioner to file a petition under section 6 of the Assam Requisition Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the) seeking a reference to the competent Court to make such determination.

6. Subsequently, the learned District Judge after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record has passed the judgment dated 30.07.2015 and as there were some typographical errors, the final judgment was dated 29.08.2015. The learned Judge vide the aforesaid judgment had held as follows:

'20. The petitioner is entitled to requisition charges of Rs. 3,13,320/- and repairing charges of Rs. 4,62,967/- against vehicle No. AS-12-A-1269. The petitioner is also entitled to requisition charges of Rs. 3,07,750/- and repairing charges of Rs. 5,15,456/- against vehicle No. AS-12-A-3081. This reference is accordingly answered. '

7. The present petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.08.2015.

8. I have heard Shri K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. The records of the case which were requisitioned have been duly examined.

9. Opening his arguments, Shri Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the requisition of vehicles in the State is governed by the Assam Requisition Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 , wherein a detailed procedure has been laid down. Section 4 relates to payment of compensation whereas Section 5 is in connection with release from requisition. As per the said section, the liability of the authority continues till the vehicle is released from requisition by a notice in writing. In the instant case it is argued that there is no notice in writing regarding release of vehicle by the competent authority and therefore the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge is factually incorrect. He further submits that the provision of statute has to be strictly construed.

10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the case of Purnya Kala Devi Vs. State of Assam & Anr. Reported in 2014 (14) SCC 142. In the said case, an accident was caused by a vehicle which was at the stage of requisition by the State Government. The Honble Supreme Court by conjointly reading the provision of the Sections 5 and 2 (30) of theof 1988 came to a finding that under such circumstances the respondent State was squarely covered under the definition of 'owner'. The provision of Section 5 had attained significance in the said case in as much as, the accident had occurred prior to release of the vehicle by the State Govt.

The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 05.06.2015 delivered in RFA 37/2008 (Anwar Hussain Vs. The Union of India And Ors). In the said case, the plaintiffs claim for compensation for damage caused to the vehicle in an accident while the vehicle was under requisition was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground of limitation. This Court while remanding the matter for a fresh decision had observed that unless the vehicle is released to the owner, the liability is deemed to be with the State Govt.

11. Per contra, Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam has submitted that there is no violation of any provision of the statute and the compensation granted is justified and reasonable. Firstly, it is submitted that though Section 5 talks about the notice, the same is not defined in the and therefore, there cannot be any specifying prescription of such notice. In any case, he submits that it is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that he was informed in writing about the release of the vehicle. Specifically refuting the submissions of the petitioner, it is submitted by the State Counsel that the judgement itself has taken note of the requirement of issuance of a notice and has also come to a finding that such notice in writing was admittedly issued to the petitioner and therefore there is hardly any scope for interference with the impugned judgement. By referring to the paragraph 13 of the judgement, the State Counsel submits that while the vehicle was released by the Army on 24.06.2000, it was the date of the written notice i.e. 27.06.2002 which has been treated as the relevant date. He accordingly submits that the compensation arrived at for the two vehicles, both on the count of requisition charges and repairs is fully justified and adequate.

12. The rival contentions of the learned counsel have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court carefully examined.

13. To deal with the controversy in question it would be convenient to note down the relevant provisions of the: Section 5 reads as follows:

'5. (1) The officer or authority requisitioning a vehicle may at any time release the vehicle from requisition and when it is decided so to do, a notice in writing shall be served on the owner to take delivery of the vehicle on or within such date and from such place and such person as may be specified therein.

(2) With effect from such date no further liability for compensation or payment of any other kind shall lie with the officer or authority requisitioning the vehicle:

Provided that such officer or authority may make such further payment on account of compensation for any material damage done to the vehicle during the period of requisition, as assessed in the manner mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 4 of this Act.

(3) The delivery of possession of the vehicle to the owner or his accredited agent shall be a full discharge of any liability of the State Government to deliver possession to such person as may have rightful claim to possession thereof but shall not prejudice any right in respect of such vehicle which any other person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom possession of the vehicle is so delivered.

(4) If the owner fails to take delivery of the vehicle on or within the specified date the officer or authority who passed the order of release of the vehicle may dispose of the same thereafter:

Provided that such officer or authority shall be competent to allow to the owner such extension o time as he/it may deem proper without any liability for any compensation or other payment for the period of extension.

(5) The disposal of a vehicle under sub-section (4) shall be by public auction and at the risk of the owner and the sale proceeds shall be made over to the owner after deducting any expenditure incurred by the officer or authority releasing the vehicle due to the owner not taking delivery of it on or within the specified date.'

14. A reading of the aforesaid provision of law makes it clear that the liability to pay compensation would be up to the date of release which has to be notified in writing. The language imposed in the statute is perhaps to overcome any possible mischief whereby in spite of informal release, the vehicle continues to be with the authorities. This Court has also taken note of the observations made by the learned District Judge in paragraphs 13 & 16 which is extracted herein below:

'13. The petitioner has stated in his evidence-in-affidavit that on 27.06.2002, he came to know for the first time that the vehicle No. AS-12-A-1269 was released by Army Authority on 24.06.2000. The said fact was intimated to the petitioner vide Ext.23 which is the Sanction order vide Memo No.SNZ 6/2002/300 dated 27.02.2002 in respect of vehicle No. AS-12-A-1269 and similarly in respect of vehicle No. AS-12-A- 3081 also, he came to know for the first time on 27.06.2002 he Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur informed the petitioner that the vehicle has been released by Army Authority on 04.07.2000.

14

15

16. In the instant case, as the petitioner has stated that on 27.06.2002 he was informed, for the first time, in writing regarding the release of the vehicles and this contention of the petitioner could not be countered by the opposite parties. Therefore, for the purpose computation of compensation against requisition of vehicles, this Court is of considered view that the date 27.06.2002 can be taken as the date on which the release of the vehicles was notified in writing to the petitioner and this, date can be regarded as the date till when the petitioner is entitled to requisition compensation. '

15. The learned District Judge has recorded the stand of the petitioner himself taken in the evidence on affidavit that on 27.06.2002, he came to know for the first time that the vehicle was released by the Army authorities on 24.06.2000 and accordingly the compensation has been assessed up to 27.06.2002.

16. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned State Counsel that benefit of section 5 of thehas already been given to the petitioner whereby two more years have been taken into consideration as in those two years, the vehicles were still under the custody of the authority. Though Shri Bhattacharjee strenuously urged that date of release of the vehicle by the Army authority cannot be construed to be the date of release by the authorities under the, from the observation made by the learned District Judge in paragraph 13 of the judgement, it appears that the aforesaid point has been duly taken into consideration.

17. None of the two case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would come to his aid. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Purnya Kala Devi (supra) has held that till the vehicle under requisition is released by serving notice in writing, any liability would have to be borne by the State. Similarly, this Court in the case of Anwar Hussain (supra) has held that liability of the State Government would continue till the vehicle is released from requisition. There is no dispute to the proposition of law laid down by the aforesaid two cases though the same may be in the form of obiter dita. However, in the instant case as has been held above, it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was informed in writing about the release of the vehicle even after which he did not take delivery of the vehicles in questions.

18. This Court has also noticed that the prayer in this petition is only to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur. Without any further prayer, the entire exercise for filing this writ petition appears to be a fruitless one. However, this Court has not dismissed the petition on this ground.

19. Further while dealing with the submission regarding requirement of notice in writing for requisition of vehicle, while concurring with the conclusion of the learned District Judge that the petitioner himself had admitted of receiving the information of release of the vehicles in writing, the question whether the such notice in writing is mandatory or directory is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Suffice it to notice that section 5 (1) has to be read alongwith the other sub sections including section 5 (2) which will make it clear that it is only for the purpose of determination of the liability that such date attains significance.

20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that in case the petitioner is yet to receive the amount of compensation as directed by the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2015, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order, which the petitioner would be at liberty to obtain.

21. No cost.