IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.342 of 2010 In CWJC No. 8330 of 2007 With I.A. No. 1739 of 2010 And I.A. No. 1740 of 2010 ======================================================= Ajay Kumar, S/o Late Chandradeep Prasad, R/o Mohalla Mahavir Asthan, Naya Bazar, P.S. Bank More, Distt.- Dhanbad, State Jharkhand, the then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Samastipur, At Present Posted as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Office of District Transport Officer, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga …………….…. Appellant Versus 1. Devendra Rai, S/o Late Lal Dhari Rai, R/o Vill.- Mahmada, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur …… Petitioner in CWJC No.8330/2007 ………..…………… Respondent 1st Set, 2. The State of Bihar through Home Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Home Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director General – cum - Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna ……Respondent no. 1 to 3 in CWJC No. 8330/2007 ………………………..Respondent 2nd Set, 5. The Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance, Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna 6. The Commissioner - cum - Secretary, Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 8. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur 9. The Officer Incharge, Pusa Police Station, Samastipur 10. Sri Rabindra Prasad, S/o (Not Known to Appellant), At Present posted as Officer-in-charge of Pusa Police Station, Distt.- Samastipur …….. Respondent no. 5 to 10 in CWJC No.8330/2007 ...................................... Respondent 4th Set. ================================================ Appearance: 2 For the appellant: Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mr Rekha Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent no.1: Mr A.B. Ojha, Advocate. For the State: None. =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 7. 13.09.2010 Learned Senior Advocate Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh appears for the appellant. He seeks leave to delete the name of appellant no. 2 from the cause title of this Appeal and the applications. Leave is granted. The name of appellant no. 2 be removed from the Appeal and the applications. Re. I.A. No. 1739 of 2010. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 15 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. LPA No. 342 of 2010 with I.A. No. 1740 of 2010. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 8330/2007. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 seeking release of the vehicle which was seized on 05.05.2006. The learned single Judge relied upon the observation made by this Court in the matter of Munalal Sharma Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. {2008 (2) PLJR 518}. The learned single Judge has noted, “….the State Transport Commissioner–cum-Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, this Court has noted that whenever raids were conducted in place where enforcement officers were operating huge amount of unaccounted money were recovered and it was in that 3 regard that as far back as on 28.6.2000 the State Government had directed that no person, a police officer or a Motor Vehicle Inspector could detain a vehicle for more than 24 hours without reporting the matter to the criminal Court because the moment the matter was referred to the criminal Court within 24 hours, a person could appear and plead guilty, pay fine and take release of the vehicle immediately if he could not produce papers in their defence. It is to overcome this abuse of holding back the vehicles indefinitely that such a circular was issued. Regrettably it is obeyed more in breach than in obedience. The result is that the abuse of statutory power for illegal aims virtually stands proved. All this Court can now do is to direct that as the abuse is by the officers of the State, direct the State to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner to be later realized from the officers whom the State feels are responsible for such harassment. Further the said amount shall be paid within three months from today. I further direct the State Cabinet Vigilance, the Government of Bihar to enquire into the matter and take the appropriate actions in that regard as against the guilty parties in accordance with law”. The appellant is the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector and is aggrieved by the above direction. Learned Senior Advocate Mr Singh has submitted before us that the learned single Judge has erred in recording that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors have no power to seize the vehicles. He has submitted that the observation made by the learned single Judge is contrary to the statutory provisions. Be that as it may, let it be noted, having made the passing observation the learned single Judge has also said, “But I do not propose to place anything on this circular because the facts speak fore themselves”. Thus, what really affects the present appellant is not the aforesaid passing observation but the direction to realize the amount of costs from the erring officers. Admittedly thus found, the State Government has not taken any action against the appellant. Mr Singh has submitted that a vigilance enquiry has been made and First Information Report has been lodged against one Officer-in-charge and the appellant. 4 It appears that the State Government is unmindful of the direction issued by the learned single Judge. It has not initiated proceeding against the erring officers to recover the cost of Rs. 50,000/- ordered to be paid by the State Government. Besides, before the criminal court the appellant will have ample opportunity of defence. The impugned order made by the learned single Judge does not warrant interference. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. I.A. No. 1740 of 2010 stands disposed of. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )