IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9678 of 2007 BHOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SRI RUHUP LAL SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIA KHOUN, P.S. HARLAKHI, DISTIRCT MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DEEPUTY CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CABINET (ELECTION) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, MADHUBANI., 3. MAGISTRATE INCHARGE ELECTION VEHICLE, MADHUBANI. ----------- 2 18/02/2010 The petitioner’s writ was filed on 3.8.2007. Reason for filing of the writ application is the requisition of vehicle of the petitioner, namely, BR-1P- 6011. This was a bus which was owned by the petitioner and the requisitioning was for the purpose of election duty. Vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate, Madhubani and the election in question was Vidhan Sabha for the year 2005. Assertion of the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized and requisitioned on 3.10.2005 and after completion of the process of election it was released on 15.12.2005. He claims that he is entitled for payment at the rate of Rs.1200/- per day for 63 days when the vehicle remained in the custody of the respondents but except for a meager advance of - 2 - Rs.4800/- rest of the amount has not been paid. High Court has had occasion to express its displeasure and anguish in litigations of such kind. A citizen has no option but to surrender to the dictates of the State authorities; more so when it relates to conduct of election. But once the election process are over, even if the power is vested in the Returning officer or any person thereto under so called section 160 of the Peoples Representation Act, suitable compensation has to be paid for the requisitioned vehicle. Why payments are not settled after release of the vehicle is a matter for enquiry and the Court is being tempted to order, one may be in some other litigation today or tomorrow. Large amount of funds are released in the name of election but how it is utilized and how it is spent is never properly accounted or audited. In absence of the stand of the State, since no counter affidavit has been filed, the Court saddles the responsibility upon the District Magistrate, Madhubani that he shall personally take cognizance of the claim of the petitioner, get verification from the log book and other supporting materials and shall ensure payment of the - 3 - outstanding dues to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. If the issue is not resolved then the Court will have an occasion, may be, to order a detailed enquiry or audit, may be by a Central agency or the State agency as the case may be. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)