JUDGEMENT 1. How public officers ganged up and abused their statutory authority to the detriment of citizens is writ large by the facts of this case. Earlier while ordering that the Officer In-charge of Pusa (Samastipur) P.S. to be made respondent No. 10 by name by order dated 14.11.2007, by ordering notice to be issued to respondent No. 10 vide order dated 14.11.2007, this Court at length has noticed the disturbing facts. Now we have the counter affidavits on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Inspector who was involved with this case. We have the counter affidavit of the Officer In-charge, the main players in this case. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner who is an Ex-army man and operates a Maxi bearing No. BR-06D-5651 at Samastipur which he has acquired by loan. His Maxi was illegally seized and on being harassed and illegal demands being made, when the Maxi not being released, he moved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The learned CJM, Samastipur, after seeing the prosecution report, transferred the records to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class after verification of ail the papers which were all dated much prior to the incident, ordered release of the vehicle but still the vehicle was not released. Repeatedly, the Judicial Magistrate order the Officer In-charge did not release the vehicle. This is the state when petitioner came to this Court seeking release of the vehicle as also enquiry against the erring officers and for compensation. During pendency of the writ petition, the vehicle was ultimately released and now virtually, the relief sought for compensation and investigation into the affairs of the respondents and proper actions. 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 10, the Officer Incharge of Pusa (Samastipur) P.S. in order to extract illegal gratification, seized petitioners vehicle bearing No. BR-06D-5651 on 5.5.2006 and brought it to the Pusa Police Station. When the Officer In-charge failed to coerce the petitioner into giving illegal gratification for release of the vehicle, he got the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Pusa involved in the present case to justify the otherwise illegal seizure and a seizure list (Annexure-2) was drawn up. This seizure list speaks volumes and contains vital information. When the Officer In-charge failed to coerce the petitioner into giving illegal gratification for release of the vehicle, he got the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Pusa involved in the present case to justify the otherwise illegal seizure and a seizure list (Annexure-2) was drawn up. This seizure list speaks volumes and contains vital information. The seizure list as appended as Annexure-2 is a photocopy of the certified copy made available and none of the parties has doubted its authenticity. The seizure list shows that apparently, the place of occurrence was Pusa date was 5.5.2006 and the time is 12.10 p.m. The allegation is that various documents including driving licence were not produced. The witness to the seizure is the Officer In-charge, Pusa P.S. Now the crucial information. The vehicle is shown to have been seized not from any road but as per endorsement thereon at Pusa P.S. The seizure list is signed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 22.5.2006, not on 5.5.2006 and the same is forwarded to and seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 27.5.2006. None of these facts are disputed by any of the respondents. Why if the vehicle was seized on the road by the Motor Vehicle Inspector as alleged in this counter affidavit why was it not noted as such. Why it is written that the vehicle was seized at the Police Station instead is not explained, why Officer In-charge of Pusa P.S. is shown as a witness to the seizure is not explained, why the seizure list itself is not signed on 5.5.2006 by the seizing authority is not explained. The Motor Vehicle. Inspector has not explained this except by stating that he is a very busy person. Why it was sent to the C.J.M. alongwith prosecution report after 22 days of seizure and after five days of signing of seizure list is again not explained. 4. The petitioner rightly explains the whole sequence. The Officer In-charge having illegally seized the vehicle and having found that the petitioner was not ready to pay illegal gratification now had to legalize the seizure. It is because of that the Motor Vehicle Inspector also choose to join in but in doing so they forget to create document properly. 4. The petitioner rightly explains the whole sequence. The Officer In-charge having illegally seized the vehicle and having found that the petitioner was not ready to pay illegal gratification now had to legalize the seizure. It is because of that the Motor Vehicle Inspector also choose to join in but in doing so they forget to create document properly. They had waited for considerable period with the vehicle at the police station and as such had to create documents justifying the presence of the vehicle in the police station for such a long time. Respondent No. 10, the Officer In-charge has himself annexed the alleged station diary of the 5th and 6th of May, 2006 signed by himself in that the entry is that at 12.10 hours i.e. 10 minutes afternoon, the Motor Vehicle Inspector is supposed to have brought five seized vehicles. This is in a clear contradiction to the seizure list which says that the offence was committed at 2.10 p.m. and further that the vehicle was seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector at the Police Station itself. Thus the story of seizure is entirely a cocked up story to justify wrongful detention of the vehicle in question. In doing the aforesaid, it appears that the Officer In-charge sought to take shelter of the statutory authority of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Motor Vehicle spector enjoying the same forgetting that the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar had repeatedly noted that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors had no power to seize the vehicles. The District Transport Officers were authorized only for compounding offences in terms of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There was no further authorization in their behalf. These communications are sent on 11.8.2005 as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. 5. But I do not propose to place anything on these circulars because the facts speaks for themselves. 6. Now even though, the vehicle was seized on 5.5.2006 it was detained without report to the judiciary. No prosecution report was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was then, as noted above, signed by the M.V.I. on 22nd of May, 2006 and forwarded and seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27th of May, 2006. The Chief Judicial Magistrate then forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur. No prosecution report was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was then, as noted above, signed by the M.V.I. on 22nd of May, 2006 and forwarded and seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27th of May, 2006. The Chief Judicial Magistrate then forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur. The petitioner then made an application to the Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle, having failed to persuade either the M.V.I. or the Officer In-charge to release the vehicle, the petitioner filed all the papers i.e. driving licence, registration paper, tax token permit etc. which are all issued much prior to the alleged occurrence and after perusal and being satisfied therewith, the learned Magistrate directed to release of the vehicle. Ordinarily one would have expected that would have ended the matter. It was not to be for the Officer In- charge and the M.V.I. had not yet been satisfied. The petitioner repeatedly, went without luck. He reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police. He complained to the Judicial Magistrate all of whom failed to get the vehicle released to the petitioner and then the petitioner came to this Court and it is only when it became known to the authorities that the writ petition had been filed, the petitioner was asked to take delivery of the vehicle "in good condition". The explanation of the Officer In-charge is that he repeatedly wrote and sent notices to the petitioner to come and take delivery of the vehicle after release order of J.M. but the petitioner refused to take the vehicle. Such an absurd defence is only fit to be rejected. A person wants his vehicle he moves the Court and gets an order of release and then to say that he did not take the release, is not to be believed. He complains to the Superintendent of Police, he complains to the Magistrate, he travels to Patna and files a writ petition which the Officer In-charge submits, is only to malign the Officer In-charge I cannot accept it" It is against nature conduct. Then the delivery of vehicle in "good condition" the certificate that was required to be given by the petitioner also shows the force exerted by the Officer In-charge in that matter. Then the delivery of vehicle in "good condition" the certificate that was required to be given by the petitioner also shows the force exerted by the Officer In-charge in that matter. A vehicle that had been standing in the open for over one and half years uncared for can never be in good condition. That is a contradiction in itself. These facts clearly show that the entire exercise was an abuse of power and mala fide exercise of power, the reasons for it are not far to be seen. The reasons are eloquently noted by this court in the case of Munalal Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2008(2) PLJR 518 wherein referring to the circular of 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 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 a 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. 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. A copy of this order may be given to Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned Advocate who assists the Special P.P in this Court in the Vigilance cases. 7. In this connection I may note that unless action is taken against the erring officers and they are held responsible for their actions such a malady would continue because officers would say that yes I have committed illegality, that may be corrected later by Courts but I cannot be touched. Official must be answerable for their actions. The aspect of said liability in this regard is now a settled issue in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663 and in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 988 wherein the State was held liable by Courts for actions committed by its officers and it was further held in the latter case that a writ petition seeking compensation in such cases would lie. 8. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ petition stands allowed.