IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.204 of 2009 RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH s/o Shivajee Singh, resident of Koratbari Chowk, Madhubani, Purnea. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3 4.11.2009 Three writ petitions were filed being C.W.J.C.No. 3739 of 2009, C.W.J.C.No.3924 of 2009 and C.W.J.C.No. 4462 of 2009 against the State of Bihar, Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea and the Officer Incharge, Purnea Sadar Police Station, Purnea. The prayer was with regard to illegal action in seizing the trucks , in question, by the Sub-divisional Officer. No case was instituted. No proceedings were initiated. Trucks remained detained illegally seized. This Court while allowing the writ petitions directed that a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each would be paid for the trucks and the goods, which would be realized from the person, who had acted in such illegal manner. This was so because the trucks and the goods had been not only illegally seized but detained till they were releazed for over six months was a clear abuse of power and authority. Liberty was given to realize the compensation from the person who caused illegal detention. By this civil review , the petitioner, who is the Project Executive Officer has sought review/modification/clarification of the order. He submits that by communication dated 25.6.2009, the Collector has directed him to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation even though he had no hand in illegal seizure or detention. Admittedly, as per order of this Court itself in the writ proceedings it was illegally 2 seized by the Sub-divisional Officer,Sadar, Purnea without authority of law whatsoever and detained. In my view, this is not a case of review but at best this is a case of clarification. From the order of this Court passed in the writ proceedings, it is clear as to who was responsible of the illegal seizure. The Collector was obliged to proceed against those persons but instead who had not effected the seizure or detained the trucks under purported order of this Court is being asked to pay the compensation. That surely cannot be permitted. That is not the order of this Court. In my view the clarification to this extent would serve the purpose. The application is accordingly disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)