WP(C) 3618/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following pr ayer : It is , therefore, prayed that your Lordships would be pleased to admit this p etition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule calling upon the Respond ent Authorities to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall n ot be issued directing the Respondent authorities not to requisition petitioner’ s vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-12-E-2934 for any purpose other than the pu rposes mentioned under the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 a nd as to why the Respondent Authorities shall not be directed to release the amo unt of outstanding bill and upon such cause or causes that may be shown after he aring the parties, perusing the records further be pleased to make the rule abso lute and/or pass such further or other order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper Mr. K Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (2) GLT 142 (Suren Ch. D as and Anr. Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) submits that the aforesaid vehicle of t he petitioner cannot be requisitioned by the authorities without complying with the provisions of Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicle Act, 1968. In the sai d decision, it has been held that the order of requisition is to be made in writ ing and has to be served on the owner. It has further been held that in the even t of owner being not available or if, the ownership is in dispute the authority may requisition any vehicle by publication in the official Gazette. It is only a fter completion of such formalities when the owner of the vehicle does not make the vehicle available to the authorised official then only the power of seizure of the vehicle is exercised. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without first complying with the aforesaid procedure, the authority re-requisitioned the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner from time to time and that adding insult to the injury the compe nsation amount has also not been paid to the petitioner. Ms. R Chakrborty, learned State Counsel, Assam, submits that the authori ties will comply with the requirement of the aforesaid Act towards requisitionin g the vehicle of the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the re quisitioning authorities to comply with the requirement of the aforesaid Act and the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment in Suren Ch. Das (Supra). It is further provided that the authorities, who are required to pay the requisition compensation to the petitioner shall pay the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2(two) months.