IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.2963 of 2010
AJEET SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-----------
2 22.09.2010 This Court by order dated 9.7.2009 passed in CWJC
No., 7559 of 2009 directed the release of the Tractor and Trailer
in favour of the petitioner on furnishing appropriate sureties to
the satisfaction of Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya. Petitioner
had difficulty in complying with the said order. He got a
modification by filing another Writ application being CWJC No.
15110 of 2009 wherein by the order dated 18.5.2010, this Court
directed that inconsistence of demand of bank guarantee was not
correct and petitioner’s Tractor and Trailer would be released on
proper identification on petitioner’s furnishing bond to the extent
of surety, as demanded by the Divisional Forest Officer, at the
earliest. Petitioner states and it is not in dispute that in the
show cause that the petitioner duly deposited bond ,as asked by
the Divisional Forest Officer, on 9.6.2010 seeking release.
Petitioner alleges that he was told that the Tractor and Trailer
would not be released in spite of the order of this Court and the
Divisional Forest Officer uses derogatory language. A legal
notice accordingly was sent on behalf of petitioner on 11-6-
2010 stating these facts, inter alia, to the Divisional Forest
Officer. The response of the Divisional Forest Officer to the
legal notice is Annexure- F to the show cause. In the show cause
2
it is stated that the petitioner though furnished a bond and though
the Divisional Forest Officer issued release order on 9.6.2010,
the petitioner has not turned up since then to take the release.
Having considered the show cause, in my view, the show cause
is fit to be rejected. The reply of the Divisional Forest Officer to
the legal notice, as appended to the show cause, itself is enough
to convict the Divisional Forest Officer of contempt. The
Divisional Forest Officer states that, in fact , on 9.6.2010, he had
ordered for release of the Tractor and Trailer on furnishing
bond, which order sheet was singed by the petitioner. If that was
so then where was the occasion to issue a legal notice makes it
abundantly clear that even now the Divisional Forest Officer is
insisting on bank guarantee.Notwithstanding the order of this
Court for releasing it on bond that is clear from paragraph 5 and
paragraph 7 of the reply to the legal notice. It is clear that the
signature of the petitioner on the order sheet was obtained prior
to passing the order. I fail to understand when bonds are
furnished and accepted and release order was issued why would
the petitioner issue legal notice and come to this court rather
than take release of Tractor and Trailer. The reason is paragraphs
5 and 7 of the reply. The order sheet has been interpolated.
Ordinarily, these are the facts, which are enough to convict the
Divisional Forest Officer of contempt but I give him a chance. It
would be his responsibility to ensure that the Tractor and Trailer
are delivered at the residence of the petitioner in good shape and
3
the Divisional Forest Officer would obtain receipt of the release
of the Tractor and Trailer from the petitioner and file the same
before this Court on affidavit by 6th of October, 2010. If that is
done, Court would not proceed further in the matter.
List for orders on 6.10.2010.
( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
singh