IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.18 of 2007 RAMCHANDRA PRASAD, S/o Shri Lakhan Prasad, resident of village Pakri Barawan, PO & PS Pakri Barawan, Distt. Nawada Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada 3. The Officer Incharge, Nawada police station 4. R.A Himmat Singh & Company (Financer) Santhalia Bhawan, 04 Dingol Road, Behind Canara Bank, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 5. S. S. Sharma, S/o not known, Manager R.A. Himmat Singh & Company (Financer) Santhalia Bhawan, 04 Dingol Road, Behind Canara Bank, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 6. Proprietor, Maurya Motors Ltd. Authorized Dealer for Tata Commercial Vehicles, NH 30, Layak House, Deedarganj Distt. Patna 7. Tata Motor Private Ltd. registered office at Bombay House 24, Homy Mody Street, Mumbai, 400001 ----------- For the petitioner-- Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No., Advocate For respondents no. 1 to 3-- Mr.Chandra Shekhar Singh AC to GA VII For respondents no. 4 to 6 --Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For respondent no.7 --Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------------- 11 15-05-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels appearing for various respondents. Petitioner has alleged that a truck in his possession which was under hire purchase agreement with the financer, respondent no.7, was forcibly taken out of his possession by the local police of Nawada on 18-2-06 and for that petitioner claims to have filed intimation for action to the Superintendent of police, Nawada on 22-2-06 vide annexure-3. This writ petition was filed in June, 2007 alleging that State of Bihar and its police officials, that is, respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 have committed high handed action in connivance of the private respondents and, therefore, the petitioner should be paid compensation by the respondents. In the counter affidavit the police officials have denied that - 2 - they had seized the vehicle. They have disclosed that some recovery agent of the financer appears to have taken the possession of the truck in question because petitioner defaulted in payment of due installments and thereafter the truck, as disclosed in the counter affidavit of official respondents, is lying at Magadh Garage, Kendua bypass, Nawada. The financer has filed counter affidavit and has taken the stand that neither he nor any of its officials had repossessed the said vehicle. According to respondent no.7 the truck on hire purchase has been assigned to respondent no. 4 on 27-3-2007. From the materials noticed above it is clear that respondents are denying their involvement in the incident and they have submitted that annexure-3 to the writ petition has been denied by the official respondents and the writ petition has been filed after about 11 months only to claim compensation. It is further clear that the police officials of Nawada have located the place where the truck is available and it is for the petitioner to take possession of the truck if he has valid claim over the same. In view of dispute of facts, it is not possible to award compensation against the State or its officials. So far as claim against private respondents is concerned, that can only be awarded after proper adjudication on facts. However, if the petitioner feels that his allegation against the police officials that they dispossessed him of the truck is correct and if he wants to pursue the same, he will be at liberty to file a FIR in the concerned police station or to file a complaint case against those who dispossessed the petitioner of custody over the truck. - 3 - The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.)