Tripura Truck Owners Syndicate vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition.

Petitioner has challenged a notification dated 15.02.2018 and communication dated 03.04.2019 in following background:

Petitioner is the Association of Truck Owners of Tripura. Respondent No.1 is State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Finance Department. Respondents No.2 to 4 are the Electoral Officers under the State Election Commission and are responsible for conduct of the State elections. For smooth conduct of the State Assembly Election of Tripura of the year 2018, the said respondents required large number of vehicles on temporary basis. In order to obtain sufficient number of such vehicles, the State Election Commission machinery represented by the respondents No.2 to 4 undertook discussions with various associations registered or unregistered of vehicle owners of different categories. The principal issues of course would be the terms and conditions for hiring such vehicles and of remunerating the vehicle owners for such temporary use by the State Election machinery. On 09.01.2018 a meeting was held between all such vehicle owners' associations including the petitioner Truck Owners' Association and the State Election machinery during which the hiring rates of various categories of vehicles to be used in the ensuing Assembly elections of 2018 were firmed up. The decisions in this regard were reduced in writing and duly signed by a committee comprising of J.E.(Mechanical), PWD (R&B), A.E.(Mechanical),PWD (R&B), Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, Assistant CEO, S.P. (Procurement), Joint Transport Commissioner, Additional District Magistrate (West); and chaired by Additional Secretary, Transport Department. The rates for hiring different vehicles were broken up under different headings such as detention charges within the State, detention charges for interstate movement, night halt charge, and petrol/diesel/CNG charge. Such rates specified for different categories of vehicles were reduced in writing and duly signed by all the above mentioned officials on the same day.

In the writ petition the petitioner has contended that:

"2.1 For Assembly Election of 2018, various types of huge vehicles were required, and accordingly, in the first week of January, 2018, the respondent No.4 asked the General Secretary of the petitioner association, to attend in a meeting on 09.01.2018 for fixing the rates of the hiring charge of the various types of vehicles, used in the Assembly Election 2018. In furtherance thereof, the General Secretary of the petitioner association attended in the meeting, and in that meeting, rates of hiring charges of various types of vehicles were fixed by the committee, formed by the Government of Tripura, and after fixation of hiring charges of the vehicles, all the Government officials put their respective signatures, and a copy of rate chart for hiring charges of various types of vehicles in Assembly Election 2018 was supplied to the petitioner association and others. As per that Rate Chart, apart from other charges, Night Halt Charge of Trucks (6 wheelers) was fixed at Rs.405/- per night. It is stated that the members of the committee consist with the representatives of various departments of the Government of Tripura, viz. PWD, Transport, Police, Election and District Administration. On receipt of the said Chart, the members of the petitioner association found that the rates, so fixed, are not viable, but they agreed to the said rates."

A copy of the said document is produced at Annexure-1, relevant portion of which reads as under:

Hiring rate of various categories of Vehicle to be used in forthcoming Assembly Election-2018

Sl. No.

Categories of Vehicle

Detention Charge within the state

Detention Charge for interstate movement

Night Halt Charge

Running Charges/KM

Petrol

Diesel

CNG

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

9

Truck (6 Wheeler)

Rs.1,350.00

Rs.1,552.50

Rs.405.00

Rs.0.00

Rs.20.00

Rs.0.00

Sd/- Sandip Dhar JE(MECHANICAL) PWD(R&B) Sd/- Dipak Saha AE(MECHANICAL) PWD(R&B) Sd/- Bijoy Debbarma CMVI Sd/- Suman Banik Assistant CEO Sd/- Subrata Chakraborty SP (Procurement) Sd/- Asim Saha JTC Sd/- Tamal Majumder ADM (WEST)

Sd/- (Rakhi Biswas) (Chairman) Addl. Secretary (Transport Dept.)

According to the petitioner in terms of such agreement the respondents No.2 to 4 made use of number of vehicles of the members of the petitioner association during the period between 10.01.2018 till March, 2018. However, when the association presented the bills of vehicles used by the Election Commission machinery, an amount of `10,82,445 was deducted. This was on the ground that the Finance Department of the State had not agreed to the rates fixed by the said committee with respect to the night halt charges. The respondents press in service a notification dated 15.02.2018 under which the Finance Department had decided to fix the hiring rate of all categories of vehicles to be used for General Assembly Elections, 2018 in Tripura. There was no approval for night halt charges, instead this notification provided that there shall be overtime charges for vehicles detained more than 12 hours @ `10 per hour subject to a maximum ceiling which in case of heavy motor vehicles was `100. This notification was communicated to the petitioner under a letter dated 03.04.2019 which was in response to the notice dated 27.03.2019 issued by the petitioner for payment of remaining amount of `10,82,445.

In background of such facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges for hiring heavy motor vehicles from the members of the association of the petitioner were firmed up during the meeting dated 09.01.2018. Such rates were communicated to the petitioner. It was on the basis of such bilateral agreement that the members of the association of the petitioner agreed to allow the use of their vehicles for election purpose. The respondents now cannot resile from such agreement citing the reason that the Finance Department did not approve the rates. He submitted that the notification dated 15.02.2018 was communicated to the petitioner for the first time under letter dated 03.04.2019. During the entire period when the vehicles of the owners were being used by the election machinery, the only promise held out by the administration was to pay the charges at the rates fixed as per Annexure-1 dated 09.01.2018.

Learned Government counsel Mr. Rajib Saha opposed the petition contending that the said committee had no authority to fix the hiring charges of vehicles. Concurrence of the Finance Department was, therefore, necessary. Finance Department had approved the rates which were published under a notification dated 15.02.2018 as per which the payments have already been made.

Learned counsel Mr. A. Nandi for the respondents No.2 to 4 submitted that for conduct of elections additional vehicles were needed. The rates for hiring such vehicles had to be fixed in consultation with the Finance Department since the charges are paid by the consolidated fund of the State.

In facts of the present case, in my opinion, the respondents cannot withhold the said sum of `10,82,445. This is for the following reasons:

The respondents do not dispute that a joint meeting of association of owners of different categories of vehicles did take place with the members of the committee on 09.01.2018. They also do not dispute that the said meeting was primarily for the purpose of discussing the rates for hiring vehicles. They also do not dispute that on 09.01.2018 the committee took certain decisions which were reduced in writing copy of which is produced at Annexure-1. Their further stand that the role of the said committee was only recommendatory in nature and, therefore, the rates prescribed in Annexure-1 were only for consideration of the Finance Department is not borne out from any material on record. The contention of the petitioner that not only the rates were fixed during such meeting but that a copy of the document Annexure-1 was supplied to the petitioner is not denied by any of the respondents. If this be so, the perusal of the said document would show that the same nowhere conveys any intention of the rates contained therein being only in the nature of recommendation and not final rates. When the meeting was attended by several high level Government officers such as the Engineers of PWD (R&B), Superintendent of Police (Procurement), Joint Transport Commissioner, Additional District Magistrate and chaired by none other than the Additional Secretary of Transport Department, unless and until it was specifically stated in the document or conveyed to the petitioner that the rates fixed are only suggestive, the same must be seen to have been firmed up bilaterally between the two sides. Thus in plain terms the Government machinery after discussions and negotiations with the petitioner and other vehicle owners associations had come to a final agreement on the rates at which different categories of vehicles would be hired. Any deviation from such agreement could not have been unilaterally done. The State machinery having entered into an agreement with the petitioner, had to pay the hiring charges at agreed rates.

The notification of the Finance Department was issued after the hiring of the vehicles had begun. Had such notification been communicated to the petitioner suggesting that hiring of vehicles from the date of such notification would be under the revised rates and if the members of the petitioner association had not objected to the same, the respondents could have withheld the payment of night halt charge post communication of such notification. In the present case, the notification remained in the files of the Government without any communication to the petitioner. Had the notification been communicated to the petitioner, it was open for the members of the association thereafter to continue to supply the vehicles at the revised rates or if not found viable to refuse to supply voluntarily. Thereafter the question of compulsory requisition by the State Election machinery under the relevant statute would arise. However, such a situation never developed in the present case. Having firmed up the hiring rates of the vehicles on 09.01.2018, the respondents now want to withdraw from the rates so decided on the basis that the Finance Department did not approve the same which in my opinion would be a breach of a contract and also against the principles of promissory estoppel.

The issue can be looked at from slightly different angle. When the negotiations between the association and the State Election machinery were going on, it was open for the association to refuse to supply vehicles voluntarily at the rates offered by the Election machinery if the vehicle owners did not find it attractive enough to do so. Under such circumstances, the question of compulsory requisition of private vehicles for temporary public use would arise. However, this is not a situation in the present case. Present case concerns voluntary offer of use of vehicles by the owners at the rates offered by the respondents which cannot be modified without mutual agreement.

In the result, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the said sum of `10,82,445 with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till actual payment. This shall be done within 3(three) months from today.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.