ORDER 1. During the visit of the Chief Justice to Deoghar on 30th April, 2005, he had occasion to visit Naari Niketan, where he came across the case of a young girl named Rupa Kumari, who complained that she had been detained in the Remand Home for several years and had not been produced before the Court during that said period. On the basis of her complaint, records of her Case No. 469/C of 1998 were called for and it was found that she had been apprehended on 26th July, 1998 from a platform of Patna Railway Junction for her failure to purchase a platform ticket. Having been found guilty by the Railway Magistrate, she was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment, to undergo imprisonment of a period of nine days. Since, she was unable to pay the fine, she was taken to Naari Niketan and detained there ever since. The last order passed by the Railway Magistrate in her case was on 1st September, 1998 directing the Superintendent of Remand Home to hand her over to her parents on proper identification. 2. After service of notice on the States of Jharkhand and Bihar, the learned Advocate General appeared for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. A. Allam appeared for the State of Bihar. When the matter was taken up on 5th July 2005, both the States of Bihar and Jharkhand were directed to file their respective affidavits indicating the reasons for failure on the part of the authorities of both the States to contact the childs parents so as to make over the custody of the minor girl to her parents. In the event Rupa Kumari had attained majority, she was to be given the option to either stay at the Remand Home or to leave according to her choice. 3. The matter subsequently appeared before us on 19th July, 2005 when the State of Jharkhand filed an affidavit indicating that Rupa Kumari had been taken to Assam on 17th July, 2005 in an attempt to hand her over to her family members. The State of Jharkhand was directed to file further affidavit to the follow up action taken while the State of Bihar was directed to complete its affidavit in the meantime. 4. The State of Jharkhand was directed to file further affidavit to the follow up action taken while the State of Bihar was directed to complete its affidavit in the meantime. 4. On 3rd August, 2005, the affidavits filed by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand were placed before the Court and from the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it is seen that Rupa Kumari was not the real name of the girl and that her real name is Anita Majumdar and her elder brother is one Ashok Majumdar. It also appears, from the affidavit that she was handed over to the custody of Sri Ashok Majumdar and both the said Ashok Majumdar and Anita Majumdar alias Rupa Kumari as also the Officer Incharge, Golaghat P.S. recorded such fact on 2nd July, 2005. 5. In order to conclude the sordid episode as a result of which nine years of Anita Majumdars life was taken from her and she was kept within the confines of the Remand Home in Deoghar, we are of the view that she should be compensated both by the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand, although no amount of compensation can restore the said nine years of her life to Anita Majumdar. 6. On behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that, in fact, the State of Bihar had provided shelter to the minor girl whose parents had chosen not to take charge of her when she had been arrested from the Railway Platform at Patna. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State of Jharkhand was not in the picture at the relevant point of time, but was created subsequently and could not, therefore, be faulted for the lapse. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State of Bihar had initially acted pursuant to the order passed by the Railway Magistrate at Patna and the State of Jharkhand had no role to play in the matter, except for continuing to provide shelter to the minor girl, when no one from her family appeared to take her in their custody. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State of Jharkhand could not, therefore be penalized for having, in fact, provided shelter to the minor girl. 7. Mr. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State of Jharkhand could not, therefore be penalized for having, in fact, provided shelter to the minor girl. 7. Mr. Allam appearing for the State of Bihar had little to add to what was submitted on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and submitted that when the parents of the girl were not ready to take her into their custody, the State of Bihar could not be blamed for keeping her in the Remand Home even after the expiry of the period of the sentence imposed on her by Railway Magistrate, Patna. 8. The submission made on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar does not appear to us to be convincing mainly on account of the fact that as soon as the matter was taken up by the Court, steps were taken to locate a family member of the minor girl and she was handed over to the custody of her elder brother within a very short time. The exercise undertaken in the last few weeks should have been undertaken at the point of time when the minor girl was initially apprehended. Although, the learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand had tried to urge that the State Government was not guilty of any neglect in the matter, but had provided for her well-being and support, the actual position in a little different. 9. Section 57 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which was in operation when the girl was initially apprehended, made provision for the appointment of Probationary Officers who were to undertake the different duties indicated in the section itself. Nothing appears to have been done in that regard as far as Rupa Kumari alias Anita Majumdar is concerned. Even after the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which replaced the Act of 1986, nothing was done to rehabilitate the minor girl, although, under Section 39 of the new Act, a definite duty is cast upon the State to restore to ones parents or guardian a child in need of care and protection. Section 39 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides as under : "Section 39. Section 39 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides as under : "Section 39. Restoration.--(1) Restoration of and protection to a child shall be the prime objective of any childrens home or the shelter home, (2) The childrens home or a shelter home, as the case be, shall take such steps as are considered necessary for the restoration of and protection to a child deprived of his family environment temporarily or permanently where such child is under the care and protection of a childrens home or a shelter home, as the case may be. (3) The Committee shall have the powers to restore any child in need of care and protection to his parent, guardian, fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, and give them suitable directions." Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "restoration of child" means restoration to-- (a) parents; (b) adopted parents; (c) foster parents. 10. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that the; restoration of and protection to a child is to be the prime objective of any Children Home or Shelter Home. There is nothing on record to indicate that any steps were taken either by the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand to restore Rupa Kumari alias Anita Majumdar to the care and protection of her parents or guardian before the Court intervened in the matter. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all to indicate that either of the two States had taken any action during all these years to give effect to the statutory provisions as quoted above. 11. In our view, this is a fit case where some compensation should be paid to Rupa Kumari alias Anita Majumdar to compensate her, to some extent, for the callous neglect of the two States and the slipshod manner in which the Remand Home has been functioning in Deoghar. 12. We, therefore, direct that Rupa Kumari alias Anita Majumdar be paid a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), to be borne equally by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. Such payment is to be made within a month from date, by Bank Drafts in the name of Anita Majumdar and the same is to be made over to her in Assam, where she has been restored to the custody of her elder brother.