IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.964 of 2008 AFTAB AHMAD, SON OF SHEIKH AMZAD ALI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KISHUNBAGH MOHAMMAD NAGAR COLONY, P.O. AND P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED THORUGH CANE COMMISSIONER-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIATE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800001, DISTRICT PATNA. 3. CANE COMMISSIONER-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIATE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800001, DISTRICT PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT CANE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIATE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800001, DISTRICT PATNA. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, UNIT SUGAULI SUGAR MILLS C/O BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, P.S. SUGAULI DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ----------- 05. 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, who states that in spite of his best effort to seek instruction in the matter from the Cane Commissioner, Bihar and the Collector, East Champaran, the authorities have not furnished any instruction in compliance of the different orders of this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the State this Court could have initiated proceeding for contempt against the authorities but instead of initiating proceeding for contempt, it is deemed appropriate to grant one more - 2 - opportunity to the Cane Commissioner, Bihar and the Collector, East Champaran to make available the documents of the petitioner, which was kept in the office premises of the Sugauli Sugar Factory at the time when possession of the sugar factory was taken over by the authorities in the light of the provisions of the Take Over Act as according to the petitioner those documents were also taken over by the authorities who took possession of the sugar factory. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the letter of the Assistant Cane Commissioner dated 17.1.2006 and 2.2.2006, Annexure-4 series and submitted that petitioner is unable to produce the documents of the lands which were the personal property of his grandfather who was one of the co-owner of the Sugauli Sugar Factory as those documents remained in the office of the sugar factory at the time possession of the sugar factory was taken over by the authorities in the light of the provisions of the Take Over Act. The documents remained in possession of the authorities after its take over during the period when the petition challenging the vires of the Take Over Act was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that soon after the litigation came to an end in February, 2003 petitioner took steps to recover those documents but his request to - 3 - recover the documents was refused verbally and the earlier writ petition was filed after receipt of the aforesaid two letters which was disposed of under orders dated 10.12.2007 granting liberty to file fresh writ case. 2. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioner to furnish a copy of this order before the Cane Commissioner, Bihar and the Collector, East Champran, Motihari so as to enable them to make available the documents seized from the office premises of Sugauli Sugar Factory at the time of its take over for perusal of the petitioner and if any document of the petitioner is found kept with the old records, he be given those documents. Necessary compliance of this order be made by the Cane Commissioner and the Collector, East Champran, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of this order before them. 3. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)