IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2523 of 2010 Devanand Prasad Versus State of Bihar & Ors. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Indradev Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr.D.K.Sinha, AAG-II and Mr. M.K.Pathak, AC to GA-4. -------------- 5 20.10.2011 Alleging non-compliance of the orders of this Court dated 13.01.2010 passed in CWJC No.8187 of 2009, this contempt application was filed by the petitioner. The application was taken up on 09.02.2011, on which date four weeks time was allowed to the opposite parties to file their show cause. Show cause was not filed within that time. Hence, on 08.09.2011, this Court initiated a proceeding of contempt against opposite party no.4, i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Gaya. Accordingly, show cause has been filed and the opposite party no.4 is present in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of this Court was passed on 13.01.2010. He produced that order before the opposite party no. 4 on 30.01.2010. On 04.02.2010, petitioner was 2 called for hearing and on 13.02.2010 an order was passed by the opposite party no.4 that the order of this Court was not possible to be complied with in time as the seized vehicle was not being identified. A copy of the said order is Annexure-4. Therefore, it was mentioned in the order that prayer be made to this Court for some more time for compliance of the order. However, no step was taken to get an extension from this Court. Hence, petitioner was compelled to file this contempt application on 29.06.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the opposite party no.4 came to know about filing of the contempt application he proposed that an appeal may be filed against said order of this Court dated 13.01.2010 with a limitation petition, vide Annexure-E. However, neither any appeal was filed nor any application for modification was filed nor the vehicle and the goods were released nor any show cause was filed in this case. It was finally only after when the contempt proceeding was initiated against opposite party no.4 by order dated 08.09.2011, the order for release was passed, 3 vide Annexure-H to the show cause fixing compensation of Rs.20,000/- for compounding offence and for release of the goods seized and liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was estimated by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, a report whereof is Annexure-5 to the reply. The report shows that the valuation of the vehicle which was in a damaged condition was assessed only as Rs.10,100/-. Hence, he submits that the compensation fixed by the opposite party no.4 is excessive and not in consonance with the order passed in the writ application. He further submits that the vehicle is in a damaged condition and not fit to be plied. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for return of the vehicle to him in the same condition it was seized or he is entitled for adequate compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle during the custody with the opposite party no.4. Learned A.A.G.-II appears for opposite party no.4. He refers to some paragraphs of the show cause in which it has 4 been explained that the then Divisional Forest Officer one Bhola Prasad had handed over the tractor to the Army Service Centre, North, Gaya for some plantation work. As per the records there was some discrepancy also in the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle in the records of the Forest Officer due to which initially the vehicle was not identified. However, later on, it transpired that it was the tractor of the petitioner which was handed over to Army Service Centre. Hence, correspondence was made and finally the vehicle was recovered from there in the condition in which it is at present. The opposite party no.4 requested the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicle and submit his report which was done by the said Annexure-5 fixing its valuation at Rs.10,100/- as per its condition at that point of time i.e. on 30.09.2011. Hence, the opposite party no.4 is ready to release the vehicle to the petitioner in its condition as reported by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and at the valuation assessed by him in his report, vide Annexure-5. Petitioner is ready to deposit the 5 amount as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and received the vehicle as described in his report dated 30.09.2011. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was damaged in the custody of the opposite party no.4. Hence, he should be compensated for the damage and loss caused to the vehicle by him. This cannot be assessed by this Court in this contempt proceeding. Hence, petitioner is granted liberty to move the competent court of law for any damage caused to the seized property and for adequate compensation for the same which shall be decided by the court concerned in accordance with law. So far as delay is concerned, learned A.A.G.-II submits that the present Divisional Forest Officer, opposite party no.4, has joined the post on 27.08.2010 and thereafter he took steps for locating the vehicle and its release, after getting the information from the Advocate General that no appeal was required to be filed against the judgment of this Court as suggested by the Conservator of the Forest, vide Annexure-E, 6 and not by this opposite party, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not point out any specific circumstance which could show that there was deliberate delay on the part of the present opposite party no.4. Hence, the show cause of the present opposite party no.4 is accepted. The Rule of contempt is discharged and the contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to deposit the amount of valuation assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in the office of opposite party no.4 on any date within one week in the forenoon upon which the opposite party no.4 shall release the seized property on the same day to the petitioner. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)