IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5457 of 2001 MANOJ KR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 23/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has made prayer to the following effect:- “a) For payment of full fare of the bus taken on election duty with 8% interest as earlier directed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3582 of 1998( R ). b) For quashing the Annexure-10 whereby the District Magistrate-Cum-District Election Officer, Banka refused for payment of compensation for Damages, due to an accident on Election duty to the petitioner. c) For payment of compensation for non-plying the bus in question due to non-payment of compensation. d) For remit the amount of Road tax for non-plying the bus in question on account of an accident on Election Duty. Counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid relief as sought by the petitioner in this writ application has pointed out that admittedly the vehicle in question, a bus bearing registration No. BR-20P/0025, was seized and used in election duty at Bounsi. He 2 has referred to some of the documents that after seizure of Bus in question the Returning Officer, Banka had sent the said vehicle with police force to Khagaria for performance of election duty. He has also brought to the notice of this Court some documents showing that on 23rd February, 1998 the aforesaid Bus had met an accident near Barauni for which a F.I.R. was also lodged. The grievance of the petitioner therefore is that from the aforesaid date of accident and his filing a claim soon after such accident on 23.2.1998, for a sum of Rupees 38 lacs by way of consolidated damages both for the vehicle as also the loss sustained in his business, he had kept on running around and infact when nothing was done in this respect, he had moved Patna High Court (Ranchi Banch) in C.W.J.C. No. 3582 of 1998 ( R ) and a Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.9.2000 had passed a reasoned order remitting the matter back to the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate-Cum-Returning Officer of Banka 3 District directing him to determine the question relating to payment of hire charges and compensation for damages of the Bus within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioner in this context has emphasized on that part of aforesaid order of this Court that in the event the petitioner was found entitled for any amount either under the head of hire charges or compensation for damages of the Bus, the authorities would be liable to pay not only such amount but also interest at the rate of 8% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the aforesaid writ application, i.e, 16.12.1998 till the date of its payment. In this regard it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforementioned order the D.C/D.M., Banka had paid the admissible hire charges to the tune of Rs. 3,492/- on 21.11.2000, but his claim for compensation for damages of the Bus was altogether rejected by the impugned order dated 26.12.2000. Counsel for the petitioner while 4 assailing the impugned order dated 26.12.2000 has submitted that the view taken by the D.C/D.M. is contrary to the law as laid down by a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Ram Narayan Singh Vs. The election Commission & Ors’, reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R 621, wherein it has been laid down that the compensation for accident of a vehicle being used for election duty has not to be paid by the Insurance Company but by the user, i.e, the State. He, accordingly, submits that the reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order run contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Narayan Singh (supra) and the view taken that the petitioner should have approached the Insurance Company for payment of such compensation is wholly unsustainable specially when in the order of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) dated 20.9.2000 it was clearly mentioned that the Insurance Company had already rejected claim of the petitioner on that very ground on 12.11.1998. 5 Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, would pray that even today this matter can be agitated by the petitioner before this Court for issuance of a direction for payment of compensation by the D.C/D.M. Banka. On the other hand, counsel for the State representing the D.C/D.M. Banka submits that this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of Election Commission of India as party, in as much as, the vehicle of in question was used for Lok Sabha election and therefore impleadment of State Election Commission was of no avail. This Court however must notice this objection only for its being rejected. It is not in doubt that the Collector has passed order the impugned. The vehicle was seized under his authority as Returning Officer and if at all any payment is to be made, the said amount has to be gathered from the funds allocated by the Election Commission of India. In that view of the matter the Election Commission of India at best can be proper party but not the 6 necessary party and as such this writ application cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ram Narayan Singh (Supra). That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order and directs the D.C/D.M. to apply his mind afresh after looking into the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of Ram Narayan Singh (Supra) and in case it is found that the vehicle in question had met an accident in course of election duty and had sustained damages as being claimed, he would after collecting the report made by the surveyor from the Insurance Company proceed to finalize the claim and make a requisition for the amount which he finds the petitioner to be entitled for such payment. On such requisition the Election Commission of India will be under bounden duty to release the same. It is, however, made clear that such claim of the petitioner will be 7 confined only to the damages caused to the vehicle and in the event the petitioner is interested for claiming any damages in his business, he will have to seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court. It is, however, made clear that whatever amount for the damages of the vehicle is ascertained and fixed by the Collector the same shall be payable along with interest at the rate of 8% from 16.12.1998 till the date of actual payment as directed in the earlier order of Ranchi Bench, Patna High Court in the order dated 20.9.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 3582 of 1998 (R). The aforesaid direction must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and actual payment, if any, found admissible to the petitioner must be made in the aforementioned period. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar