WP(C) 2458/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr.J.Handique, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.J.Ghosh, learne d Govt. Advocate, Assam. The petitioner is the owner of a public carrier (Bus) having registratio n No. AS 07 /4488. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the said vehicl e in the year 1998. On 19.10.2000, the said vehicle of the petitioner was requis itioned under an order of the Sub divisional Magistrate, Dhemaji. The petitioner has stated and averred that immediately after the vehicle was requisitioned, on the same day, it was sent to Guwahati ; enroute the vehicle had met with an acc ident as a result of which the vehicle had sufferred major damage. After the veh icle was handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs. 68 ,320.00 to repair the vehicle and to make it road worthy. Accordingly, the petit ioner had submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji for payme nt of the said amount along with the requisition compensation amounting to Rs. 5 6,580.00. As the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji and other authorities of the State have failed to take any action, the present writ petit ion has been filed seeking appropriate directions from the Court. It must be noticed, at this stage, that the petitioner has enclosed, as Annexure D to the wit petition, a report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector with re gard to the extent of damage suffered by the vehicle on account of the accident. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. No instructions, either, have been communicated to the learned Govt. Advocate to enable him to ap prise the Court with regard to the stand of the Respondents. In such circumstanc es, the Court will have to proceed on the basis of the uncontroverted statements made in the writ petition. Proceeding thus, what this court finds is that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was requisitioned on 19.10.200 and while under requisition it had sufferred damage in an accident, the details of m which had been inspected by t he Motor Vehicle Inspector who had submitted a report of such inspection (Annexu re D to the writ petition.). Even if the Court is to discount the claim of compensation for damage as quantified by the petitioner in his written representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, what can not escape the notice of the Court is t hat the vehicle had suffered certain damages, the extent of which, on a plain re ading, appear to be substantial. If the vehicle of the petitioner was damaged wh ile under requisition, naturally it will be the obligation of the requisitioning to compensate the petitioner for the loss sustained by him on account of such damage. In the above facts, I am of the view that this writ petition should be c losed by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, to have the extent of the damage sufferred by the petitioner’s vehicle quantified in terms of money. Such quantification naturally will be made on the basis of the report of the Motor Ve hicles Inspector and after giving the petitioner an opportunity. Thereafter, suc h amount as may be quantified, on account of damages suffered by the vehicle, wi ll be reimbursed to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji. The Depu ty Commissioner, Dhemaji will also verify, if any amount is due to the petitione r on account of requisition compensation for the vehicle in question. On such ve rification whatever may be found to be due shall be paid to the petitioner. It is made clear that the directions of this Court, as aforesaid, will be complied with by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji within 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which such amount as may be due to the petitioner will carry interest @ 9% per annum . Writ petition consequently is allowed to the extent indicated above.