- (1.) We have perused the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jharkhand. The affidavit only indicates that all has been done by submitting this affidavit to show that there is no body who has control over the entire Transport Department of Jharkhand and every one wants to shift the burden to another. Firstly, it has been stated that before bifurcation i.e. before 28.02.2009, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was responsible for the affairs of the Transport properties falling in the State of Jharkhand. Then; after 28.02.2009 efforts were made to evict the tenants who were given possession for one year and were continuing to occupy the property for about more than 20 years and even did not pay the rent of the fixed amount which has been fixed long ago accumulating to the extent of Rs. 10-15 lacs. Thereafter, it has been stated that the S.D.O., Ranchi did not cooperate and it has been further stated that the Transport Commissioner gave letters to the different authorities for removal of the unauthorized occupants and he wrote letters to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi also. It appears that the Transport Commissioner's request are not accepted by any of the authorities and by this affidavit, it has been indicated that the Transport commissioner himself has no guts how to control the situation when his sub-ordinate or any other officer who is supposed to assist him is not cooperating with him.
(2.) This shows a total callous negligence on the part of the Transport Commissioner himself in a matter when this Court has already passed detailed orders on 16.08.2011 and 07.09.2011. It appears that the Transport Commissioner is under impression that the Transport Department should be run by the High Court and not by the Transport Commissioner. The Transport Commissioner even failed not only to evict the unauthorized occupants who failed to get any stay order from the High Court even after filing of the writ petition in the year 2007, details of which have been given in para-19 of the second supplementary counter affidavit. The Transport Commissioner, therefore, failed to protect the properties of the Transport Department, movable as well as immovable in the form of money, which should have been recovered.
(3.) Therefore, one opportunity is required to be given to the Transport Commissioner to explain his position before recommending any action against him. The Transport Commissioner shall remain present in person in the Court on 18.10.2011.;