- (1.) These proceedings initiated suo motu by the Court against the respondent No. 2, Sri Manoj Singh, the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Panchi-cum-the Authorised Officer under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1990) for committing contempt of this Court have arisen in the following manner :-
(2.) On 3-7-2001, after admitting the writ petition being W. P. (Cr.) No. 93 of 2001, this Court had passed an ad interim order directing release of the truck bearing Registration No. HP-38C/1184 provisionally in favour of the writ petitioner, if the petitioner was its registered owner and if he furnished an udnertaking to the effect that he would produce the vehicle in question if and when required by any officer or by any Court. It appears that despite this specific order passed and the categorical direction issued by this Court, the truck in question was not released by the respondent Sri Manoj Singh on being approached by the petitioner. This resulted in the petitioner in filing an Interlocutory Application No. 239 of 2001 alleging, inter alia, that the respondent No. 2 before whom the aforesaid Court order dated 3-7-2001 was produced had agreed to release the aforesaid truck, but by imposing a few conditions of his own. Along with the I. A. No. 239 of 2001, the petitioner filed a copy of the order dated 14-7-2001 passed by Sri Manoj Singh, respondent No. 2 which clearly suggests that after giving a reference to the aforesaid order dated 3-7-2001 passed by this Court, he on his own incorporated certain additional terms as condition precedent for the release of the truck in favour of the petitioner. Although the text of the order passed by him is in Hindi, these additional terms and conditions when translated into English, read thus :- " (1) The owner of the truck furnishes either a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lakh) or security pass book pledge in favour of the authorised officer, to the aforesaid bank; (2) Security deposit should be from any bank located in the district head-quarters; In the aforesaid condition, stipulation has also been made about the period of validity of the bank guarantee; (3) The owner of the truck shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs); (4) The security bonds of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lakh) each of the persons having movable and immovable properties; (5) An affidavit containing the following stipulations : (i) The owner of the truck shall not sell the truck to any one, nor shall transfer its ownership; (ii) The value of the truck shall not in any manner be depreciated or decreased, nor there shall be an change in its colour or shade; (iii) The truck in question shall not used for any unauthorised or illegal purposes; (iv) Whenever it is demanded, the truck shall be produced before the authorised officer; (6) The original documents of the truck would be deposited in the office of the authorised officer and would remain deposited until the settlement of the dispute."
(3.) Admittedly, none of the aforesaid conditions imposed by the respondent No. 2 finds mention or place in this Court's order dated 3-7-2001. This Court had very clearly and categorically directed that the truck in question be released in favour of its registered owner just on one and the only condition that the petitioner (the registered owner) would furnish an undertaking that he would produce the truck in question if and when so demanded by any officer or by any Court. In other words, this Court's order was very amply clear and categorical that if the undertaking was furnished, the truck in question was to be released in favour of its registered owner. The matter was so simple and clear that no one had any option or discretion in the matter of release of the aforesaid truck. But notwithstanding the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent Shri Manoj Singh took upon himself the burden of imposing six aforesaid additional conditions, compliance of which was, of course, made a pre-requisite for the release of the truck in question.;