IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.862 of 2009 1. STATE OF BIHAR through the Home Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Home Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Transport, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Samastipur. 6. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 7. The superintendent of Police, Samastipur. 8. The Officer-in-Charge, Pusa Police Station, Samastipur ……………….Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. DEVENDRA RAI S/O late Lal Dhari Rai, R/O Mahmada, P.O & P.S, Pusa, Distt-Samastipur. …..Writ petitioner/Respondent 1st Set. 2. Sri Ravindra Prasad S/O name not known to Appellants, Officer In Charge, Pusa Police Statation, Samastipur. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Investigating Bureau, Bihar, Patna. …….Respondents/Respondents 2nd Set. ----------- 3. 22-01-2010 Heard Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, Additional Advocate General-4 assisted by Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Advocate, at the stage of admission of this intra-court appeal. 2. By order under appeal dated 31.3.2009, writ petition preferred by respondent no.1, bearing CWJC No.8330 of 2007 was allowed. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that he is not challenging the major part of the order passed by the writ Court in which the mala fide delay in release of 2 motor vehicle of the writ petitioner has been discussed and findings have been recorded against some of the officials particularly the Officer Incharge of Pusa (Samastipur) P.S. He has only tried to persuade us to reverse the direction of the writ Court asking the State to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the writ petitioner to be later realized from the Officers whom the State may find responsible for harassment of the writ petitioner. 4. After going through the entire judgment and order under appeal it is clearly noticeable that the vehicle belonging to the writ petitioner, an Ex-Army man was seized apparently on whims and fancies without any good reasons. After 24 hours when the vehicle was not released, the matter was required to be reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate but no prosecution report was issued till 22 days after seizure. The order-sheet of the writ Court, particularly one dated 14.11.2007 shows that the vehicle was seized without good reasons on 22.5.2006 and even after order of release passed by a Judicial Magistrate on 23.11.2006, it was actually handed over on 25.10.2007. The facts justify the award of compensation. 5. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the 3 learned writ Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. perwez (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)