N.Pandey, J.

1. The salient and meaningful questions which arise for determination before this Full Bench may be formulated in the following terms:

(i) Whether an owner of a vehicle, which was requisitioned by the State Government under Sec. 160 read with Sec. 161 (1) and (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act), in the event of an accident on election duty, is entitled to compensation and, if so, from whom?

(ii) If it is contended that Sec. 160 read with Sec. 161 (1) and (2) of the Act only provides for hire charges but no compensation, even due to loss or damage, whether such provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of Article 19 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution?

2. The relevant facts of the case are not in serious dispute and, therefore, may be noticed with relative brevity. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. BHD 7273. The said vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period commencing from 5.10.89 to 4.10.1990. District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Muzaffarpur, while exercising a delegated power on behalf of the State Government under Secs. 160 and 161 of the Act, requisitioned and seized the jeep for election purpose on 17.11.1989. This is not in dispute that while the jeep was on election duty, it met with an accident with a running train on 26.11.1989.

3. When the jeep was released by the G.R.P. men, the petitioner made a claim before the Additional District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, for payment of hire charges and also due compensation for the loss and damages due to accident. The Additional District Magistrate, thereafter, on 15.3.90 wrote a letter to the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., to inform whether any payment in shape of compensation was made, since the jeep had met with an accident near railway gumti on 26.11.1989. The Divisional Manager by his letter dated 2.4.1990 informed the Additional District Magistrate that as per condition No. 7 of the "General Exceptions" of the policy the company was not liable for the loss or damage sustained or incurred during the period of requisition of a vehicle by the Government.

4. It would be appropriate to notice condition No. 7 of the General Exceptions of the insurance policy hereunder:

General Exceptions

The company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of

(1)xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(7) any accident, loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred during the period of requisition or commandeering by the Government for any purpose: xxx xxx xxx

5. Thereafter, as would appear from the letter contained in Annexure 1 dated 18.8.1990, the Deputy Election Officer informed the petitioner that there was no provision for payment of compensation for the loss or damage of a vehicle during the period of requisition for election duty. The petitioner, therefore, can lay his claim before the railway administration.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State authorities, a plea has been taken that Sec. 161 of the Act is the only provision which prescribes for payment of compensation for the use of a vehicle to the owner. But there is no provision to compensate loss or damages. Therefore, in absence of any such statutory provision for payment in a case of damage or loss due to accident, etc., the court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the insurance company and the Divisional Manager (respondent Nos. 4 and 5). The stand is that insurance under the Motor Vehicles Act is a guarantee to the owner of the vehicle, that on any claim for loss or damage of a vehicle the insurer shall discharge the liability of such owner or compensate loss in terms of the policy. Therefore, this is an exclusive contract between the two parties. It is not a univer