IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.486 of 2008 PINKI DEVI, WIFE OF TUNTUN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALYANPUR P.S. KALYANPUR DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. R.J. PILLAI SON OF NOT KNOWN THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA. 3. MR. A. AMMANULLAH, SON OF NOT KNOWN THE HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA. 4. MR. ASHIS RANJAN SINHA SON OF NOT KNOWN THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA. 5. MR. SURENDRA LAL DAS SON OF NOT KNOWN THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 6. MR. SHIVE CHARAN DAS SON OF LATE ASHRFI DAS THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(HEADQUARTER) SAMASTIPUR. 7. MR. MUKHLAL DAS SON OF NOT KNOWN THE POLICE INSPECTOR/OFFICER IN CHARGE SAMASTIPUR MUFASIL POLICE STATION DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 8. MR. RANVIR @ RANVIR THAKUR SON OF KAMLNATH THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR DUDHPURA P.S. SAMASTIPUR DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 9. MR. RAVI TODI SON OF NOT KNOWN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHARCHI SECURITIES “TODI MENSION” INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE EXTENSION KOLKATA-700073. 10. SANJEEV AGRAWAL SON OF NOT KNOWN THE DIRECTOR OPERATION SHARCHI SECURITIES TODI MENSION INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE EXTENSION KOLKATA-700073. 11. RANJANA PODDAR WIFE OF SRI SUNIL ANAND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAXMIPUR P.S. ROSERA DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ----------- 04. 31.03.2010 In compliance of my order dated 17.3.2010 opposite party no.8 has been produced by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samastipur and the Officer-in-Charge, Muffasil Police Station, Samastipur who has also filed show cause on behalf of opposite party no.9 and 10 asserting that the vehicle in question was made available for delivery to the petitioner on 22.2.2008 but its delivery was not accepted by the petitioner, whereafter other letters annexed with the show cause were also written to her but she did not respond to accept the delivery of the vehicle in question. Aforesaid statement is being disputed by the counsel for the petitioner with reference to the letter of - 2 - the petitioner, Annexure-8C to the show cause. It appears there is dispute about the factum as to whether opposite party nos.7 to 9 offered the vehicle in question for being delivered to petitioner in compliance of the orders of this Court and it may not be appropriate at this stage to direct for payment of compensation unless the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation is considered in a petition which is filed for such payment. 2. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition for payment of compensation for failure of opposite party nos.7 to 9 to deliver the vehicle in question in compliance of the orders of this Court. 3. Counsel for opposite party no.8 states that vehicle in question has been brought to the High Court campus for being delivered to the petitioner. Let the vehicle in question be delivered to the petitioner after its inventory is made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samastipur so that the condition of the vehicle may also be taken into account while considering the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)