(1) WP8714-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8714 OF 2009 Kantaram Ashruba Tandale & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.F. Totla, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghadge, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petition has been preferred by seven petitioners whose vehicles were requisitioned by the State for transporting food-grains and other essential commodities in Beed district for the period from 2006 to 2009, by Govt. Resolution dated 5th August, 2001. According to the petitioners, the work of transportation by using the vehicles of the petitioners has been stopped from 21st December, 2009, and other contractors have been appointed. The petitioners contend that this action is illegal as they have not been paid their dues, nor have the (2) WP8714-09 vehicles been released by the State. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Beed in which he has stated in para-4 that the earlier decision of the Government to requisition the vehicles for transportation of the essential commodities and food grains was revoked as it was found to be too expensive by the Government. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Officer was also informed to release the requisitioned vehicles. The affiant has also averred that certain amounts which are mentioned in the chart annexed to the affidavit have been paid to the petitioners. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the amount paid to them is not correct as they were not intimated that the release order of these vehicles was passed and, therefore, they could not utilize the vehicles. It is further submitted that in view of the judgement in case of "M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills v. the State of Rajasthan and others" (AIR 1981 S.C. 1681), the State should be directed by a writ of mandamus to make good the loss incurred by the petitioners. (3) WP8714-09 4. We are not inclined to pass such orders in a writ petition. It is true that in the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court has observed that the Central Government should honour its legal obligations arising out of a contract without driving a citizen to file a suit for recovery. There is no contract in the present case. The vehicles were requisitioned and, therefore, in our opinion, this judgement does not apply to the facts in the present case. 5. Since there are disputed questions of fact as to whether the amounts were paid to the petitioners as mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply and whether the petitioners have incurred any loss because they were not informed that a release order was passed, we will not entertain this writ petition. The petition is dismissed. The petitioners are relegated to avail of remedies available before the proper forum. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp8714-09