Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010240752023 2025:GAU-AS:14258 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6259/2023 ARPAN DEY S/O LATE KAMINI DEY, R/O VILL. KALAIN TARAPUR, P.O. AND P.S. KALAIN, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (A) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-6 3:DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTH ZONE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788001. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788001. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 2/3 SILCHAR ASSAM PIN 788001. 6:OFFICER-INCHARGE KALAIN POLICE STATION P.O. KALAIN DIST. CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. IA Talukdar Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. U Das, Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. IA Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has sought for release of his vehicle, which was taken into custody by the officials of the Kalain Police Station and also sought for adequate compensation. It is seen from the records, which the petitioner duly admits that the petitioner has taken the zimma of the vehicle on 21.04.2024. Under such circumstances, the first part of the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner stands duly redressed. 3. Insofar as, the second relief so sought for as regards adequate Page No.# 3/3 compensation, it is seen from the materials available on record, more particularly, the pleadings as well as the documents enclosed to the said pleadings that there are disputed questions of fact as to whether the vehicle having been kept in custody was in accordance with law and also as to whether the petitioner was duly given the information to take back the vehicle. Though the petitioner herein relies upon the Annexure-3 to the affidavit-in-reply, but the said document which has been written by the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalain Police Station also shows that the petitioner was duly intimated to take back the vehicle by producing the necessary documents which the petitioner failed to do so. 4. Considering that there are disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated in a Forum wherein evidence can be led, it is the opinion of this Court that the case for grant of compensation as a constitutional tort, does not arise in the present facts. However, if the petitioner is, otherwise, aggrieved by the loss sustained on account of the actions on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court seeking damages for the loss sustained by the petitioner. 5. It is observed that the period from 16.10.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 6. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant