[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Patna High Court Through Learned ... vs The State Of Bihar on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3868 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court through Learned Registrar General
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Collector-cum-D.M., Begusarai Sri Tushar
Singla, District Begusarai.
2. Sri Tushar Singla, Collector-cum-D.M., Begusarai District Begusarai
3. Sri Maneesh S.P. Begusarai, District Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 16-12-2025
1. The present Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
3868 of 2025 has been registered suo motu by this Court
through its Registrar General against the State of Bihar,
arising out of non-compliance with a compensation award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai,
and subsequent developments in the execution proceedings
before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
2/19
2. By a judgment and award, dated 18.08.2023 in
Claim Case No. 35 of 2020, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Begusarai awarded a sum of Rs. 11,61,318/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization, in favour of the
claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Nutan Devi,
a mother of four children. The deceased had succumbed to
injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by rash and
negligent driving of a police vehicle owned by the Bihar
Police Department. The liability to pay the compensation was
fastened vicariously on the State of Bihar, and the Tribunal
specifically directed the District Magistrate, Begusarai and the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai to ensure payment within
one month from the date of the award.
3. Despite the aforesaid direction, the awarded
amount was not disbursed to the claimants. Consequently, the
claimants filed Execution Case No. 01 of 2024 before the
Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special
Judge (MACT), Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as the
learned Executing Court for short). In the said execution
proceedings, multiple orders were passed directing
compliance, but the amount remained unpaid on the ground of
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
3/19
non-allotment of funds by the State authorities.
4. On 10.07.2025, the Executing Court sought
explanations from the District Magistrate, Begusarai and the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai regarding their failure to
adhere to the previous orders.
5. On 25.07.2025, noting the absence of any
response, the Executing Court resolved to report the matter to
this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the
concerned officers.
6. On 21.08.2025, the Executing Court extended a
final opportunity of one month for payment, observing that
non-compliance would render the officers liable for contempt
of Court.
7. On 23.09.2025, the Executing Court recorded that
the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai had conveyed to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai (hereinafter
referred to as the learned District Judge) in his chamber that
no adverse order should be passed against him, as he was very
powerful and even this Court could not take any action against
him. It was further recorded that the learned District Judge
advised the Superintendent of Police that he would have a
cake-walk in this Court in the event of any contempt
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
4/19
proceedings. The learned Executing Court expressed its
objection to such interference in the performance of its
judicial duties.
8. On 24.09.2025, a letter dated the previous day
from the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector
General, Begusarai seeking allocation of funds was placed
before the learned Executing Court. However, observing the
casual attitude of the authorities, the Court refused to grant
any further extension.
9. On 14.10.2025, the learned Executing Court,
treating the conduct of the District Magistrate and the
Superintendent of Police as contemptuous, directed them to
file show-cause affidavits and registered a separate
miscellaneous case recommending contempt proceedings.
10. On 29.10.2025, the Superintendent of Police
filed a response, reserving his right to submit a detailed reply
before this Court.
11. On 07.11.2025, the Government Pleader
submitted on behalf of the State that payment would be made
within the next ten days, as the officers were engaged in the
legislative assembly election duties. The learned Executing
Court fixed 17.11.2025 as the final date for compliance,
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
5/19
failing which the matter would be forwarded to this Court.
12. On 17.11.2025, noting that no payment had been
made and no show-cause affidavits were filed, the Executing
Court directed transmission of the extracts of the
miscellaneous case to the Registrar General of this Court with
a recommendation to initiate contempt proceedings against the
District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. On the
same date, the learned Executing Court also noted that by an
order dated 15.11.2025, the learned District Judge had recalled
the execution case to his own file for hearing and disposal.
The learned Executing Court recorded its view that the said
order was passed hastily without examining the records and
appeared to be aimed at shielding the officers from contempt
proceedings. It further expressed that the morale of
subordinate judicial officers had been affected, and that orders
of the subordinate judiciary seemed non-binding on executive
authorities. The learned Executing Court handed over the case
records to the learned District Judge as directed.
13. Subsequently, by a letter dated 26.11.2025
addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, the learned
District Judge placed his version of the facts. He stated that
the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police had
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
6/19
informed him that steps for allotment of funds were underway,
and the matter had been discussed repeatedly in District Level
Monitoring Committee (DLMC) meetings. The learned
District Judge mentioned that he had apprised the learned
Executing Court of these discussions. He further stated that
certain comments made by the Executing Court were uncalled
for and could jeopardize relations between the judiciary and
the executive. Upon receipt of a letter dated 15.11.2025 from
the Superintendent of Police enclosing various orders of the
learned Executing Court, and after considering the discussions
in DLMC meetings, the learned District Judge exercised
powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
to withdraw the execution case from the learned Executing
Court and transfer it to his own file for trial and disposal. The
learned District Judge noted that after receiving this order on
16.11.2025
, the learned Executing Court passed orders
forwarding the record to this Court and making remarks
against him. Accordingly, the learned District Judge requested
this Court to take cognizance of these facts and take
appropriate action.
14. Upon receipt of the references both from the
learned Executing Court (through Court records and
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
recommendation dated 17.11.2025) and from the learned
District Judge (letter dated 26.11.2025), the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice was pleased to direct the Registry to register the matter
as a suo motu contempt reference, being Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction Case No. 3868 of 2025.
15. Thus, the matter is now before this Court for
consideration.
16. Since on the date of admission, nobody
appeared on behalf of the petitioner, we propose to appoint
Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Sr. Advocate as an amicus curiae in
the instant case to assist this Court.
17. Mr. Singh graciously consented and copy of the
brief was served upon him.
18. It is submitted by the learned amicus curiae that
the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Begusarai was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The said
order granting compensation to the petitioners reached its
finality. The State of Bihar or the Opposite Parties did not file
any appeal against the said order. At the same time,
indisputably, the order, directing the Superintendent of Police,
Begusarai and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Begusarai to pay compensation to the petitioners on account
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
of death of their mother in a motor accident was not complied
with. It is on record that the petitioners put the said order in
execution and in spite of issuance of notices, the
compensation amount was not paid to them. Mr. Singh frankly
submits that learned Executing Court could have taken the
steps available under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for execution of money decree. However, judicial
discipline does not permit the learned Executing Court to pass
any comment of aspersion against the District Magistrate,
Begusarai and the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
According to the learned amicus curiae, the role of the
Executing Court was to ensure recovery of compensation,
which has been ordered by the Tribunal and ensure its
payment in favour of the petitioners. However, while doing
so, the learned Judge unnecessary fell into a personal dispute
between the Executing Court and the Superintendent of Police
and the District Magistrate.
19. It is also found from the record that the
Superintendent of Police, subsequently, informed in writing
that he sent a letter to the Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna for allotment of fund for payment of compensation
amount but the said fund was not released. As soon as it
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
would be released, the same would be deposited in the Court.
But the District Magistrate did not submit any application
before the Executing Court stating his role. The specific act of
the District Magistrate, Begusarai appears to be an instance of
showing negligence defying the Court's order. The District
Magistrate, Begusarai ought to have been made aware that
nobody is above the law and he being an Administrative
Officer is under legal obligation to render all assistance for
execution of the order of compensation because the accident
took place by a government vehicle of the Police Department
and being the head of administration, it was his solemnly duty
to observe, obey and comply with the order.
20. We have another issue in this regard. While the
war of words were going on between the learned Judge,
MACT, Begusarai and the District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Begusarai was informed about the incident in
District Level Monitoring Committee meeting. Then, he
passed an order under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, transferring the case to his file. When the
order under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
was communicated to the learned Judge, MACT, Begusarai,
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
he made some adverse comments against the said order. It
appeared to him that the learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge was trying to save the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3, as
they are highest administrative authorities of the district.
21. It is needless to say that under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a District Court has power to
transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding suo motu. For the
exercise of a power under Section 24, it is not necessary that a
party to the suit, appeal or other proceeding must have applied
for the same. The Principal District & Sessions Judge may
even suo motu exercise such power in the interest of justice.
22. While passing an order of transfer of the suit or
proceeding suo motu, the Principal District & Sessions Judge
must remember that assurance of fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central
criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer
is made, is not the hyper-sensitivity or relative convenience of
a party. Something more substantial, more compelling, more
imperiling from the point of view of the public justice and its
attendant environment is necessitous if the Court is to exercise
its power of transfer.
23. Judicial discipline is the sine qua non of an
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
effective and credible judiciary. It embodies the ethical
obligation of Courts at all levels to respect the hierarchical
structure enshrined in the Constitution and statutory laws,
ensuring that justice is dispensed uniformly and without
internal discord. As eloquently articulated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2366,
judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into
harmony. It requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to
binding precedent even where a judge is personally
unpersuaded.
24. In paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Rohan Vijay Nahar
(supra), it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
follows: -
"2. ... When a superior Court
reverses, modifies, or remands, the Court
below must give full and faithful effect to
that disposition. The authority to decide
on appeal carries the authority to require
compliance, for without obedience, the
hierarchy would become an empty form.
Resistance or evasion does not merely
disserve a party before the Court, it
erodes predictability, multiplies litigation,
and weakens faith in the rule of law.
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
3. Judicial discipline is the
ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony. It
requires Courtesy, restraint, and
obedience to binding precedent even
where a judge is personally unpersuaded.
The lawful course is to apply the
precedent and, if needed, record reasons
for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider
it. The unlawful and unjust course is to
distinguish in name while disregarding in
substance or to recast issues in order to
sidestep a rule that binds. "Stare decisis
et non quieta movere" which means to
stand by decisions and not to disturb
settled matters, is not a slogan but a
safeguard of equality before the law,
judges do not sit to settle scores The
gavel is an instrument of reason and not a
weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is
incompatible with the oath to uphold the
Constitution and the law.
4. Judges across our country
must remember that collegiality is the
companion virtue of independence and
that a reversal on appeal is not a
personal affront but the ordinary
operation of a constitutional hierarchy
that corrects error and settles law.
Respect for the senior jurisdiction is not
subservience. It is an acknowledgment
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
that all Courts pursue a common
enterprise to do justice according to
law."
25. A pivotal aspect of judicial discipline is the
unyielding adherence to orders passed by superiors in exercise
of statutory authority. Subordinate judges are duty-bound to
implement such orders without demur, as any challenge
thereto, except through prescribed appellate or revisional
channels, disrupts the chain of command and erodes
institutional cohesion.
26. In the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer, (2001) 3
SCC 54, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored the need for
judicial officers to maintain sobriety and poise, observing as
hereunder: -
"7. A Judge entrusted with the
task of administering justice should be
bold and feel fearless while acting
judicially and giving expression to his
views and constructing his judgment or
order. It should be no deterrent to
formation and expression of an honest
opinion and acting thereon so long as it is
within four-corners of law that any action
taken by a subordinate judicial officer is
open to scrutiny in judicial review before
a superior forum with which its opinion
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
may not meet approval and the superior
Court may upset his action or opinion.
The availability of such fearlessness is
essential for the maintenance of judicial
independence. However, sobriety, cool,
calm and poise should be reflected in
every action and expression of a Judge."
27. The Court cautioned that while independence is
essential, actions of subordinate officers remain subject to
scrutiny by superiors, and intemperate remarks or resistance
can invite disciplinary measures.
28. This duty of adherence is further reinforced in
cases emphasizing judicial discipline vis-à-vis superior
directives. For instance, in Union of India v. Kamalakshi
Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in AIR 1992 SC 711,
the Supreme Court held that lower authorities must adhere to
pronouncements of higher bodies, extending this to judicial
hierarchies where subordinates cannot evade or criticize
superior orders.
"6. ...The principles of judicial
discipline require that the orders of the
higher appellate authorities should be
followed unreservedly by the subordinate
authorities. The mere fact that the order
of the appellate authority is not
"acceptable" to the department - in itself
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
an objectionable phrase - and is the
subject matter of an appeal can furnish
no ground for not following it unless its
operation has been suspended by a
competent Court. ..."
29. Bearing the factual circumstances as well as
various judgments quoted above on the issue of judicial
discipline and judicial ethics, we are of the view that a
Judicial Officer has the duty to discharge his judicial and
administrative function in dispassionate manner. He cannot
equate himself with the cases instituted by the parties. It is
true that the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Judge,
MACT passed the order of compensation in favour of the
petitioners on account of motor accident, in which a
government vehicle was involved, causing death of the mother
of the petitioners. In spite of the said judgement having been
reached its finality, the Opposite Parties did not pay
compensation. Non-payment of compensation led the
petitioners to file execution. The learned Judge of the Tribunal
tried his best to realize the compensation amount but failed.
He was compelled to issue show-cause notices to the District
Magistrate, Begusarai and the Superintendent of Police,
Begusarai, as to why contempt proceedings shall not be drawn
against them for non-compliance of Court's order. The District
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
Magistrate did not care to give any reply to the show-cause
notice. In the meantime, the learned District Judge took
control over the file under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
30. This might cause despair and a profound sense
of hopelessness in the mind of the learned Additional District
Judge-cum-Judge, MACT but still it is the duty to act in a
dispassionate manner and he ought to have sent the case
record to the Court of the learned Principal District Judge
without making any comment on his action.
31. At the same time, it is the solemn duty of the
Principal District Judge to inspire confidence in the mind of
the Officers stationed under his judgeship so that they can
perform their judicial work fearlessly and without any
pressure or influence from any corner. We are of the prima
facie view that the Principal District Judge ought not to rely
on verbal deliberations between him and the S.P. and D.M. of
the District in DLMC meeting and pass an order suo motu of
transfer of execution case arising out of the order passed by
the MACT.
32. In view of such circumstances, we are of the
view that while the Additional District Judge-cum-Judge,
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
MACT exceeded his limit in making some observation in the
record while sending the same to the Court of learned
Principal District Judge upon an order under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Principal District
Judge ought to have come to a reasonable conclusion taking
the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, MACT in
confidence.
33. In view of such circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the observation made by the learned Additional
District Judge cum Judge, MACT in his order, dated 16 th of
November, 2025 ought to be expunged.
34. Accordingly, the observations made by the
concerned Officer vide order, dated 17th of November, 2025 is
expunged.
35. When the said observation is expunged by us,
we also do not want to take cognizance on the report
submitted by the learned Principal District Judge, Begusarai,
on his recommendation to this Court dated 26th of November,
2025, stating certain facts, which took place between him and
the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, MACT,
Begusarai.
36. With the above observation, the instant
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
Contempt Proceeding, bearing MJC No. 3868 of 2025, stands
disposed of.
37. The learned Principal District Judge, Begusarai
is directed to conclude the execution proceeding, arising out
of MACT Claim Case No. 351 of 2020, positively within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. If
compensation amount is not paid within the period fixed by
this Court, the learned Principal District Judge is at liberty to
attach the office of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai
and the District Magistrate, Begusarai and sell appropriate
portion of the same along with furnitures and fixtures for
realization of the compensation amount.
38. Before we part with, we must appreciate the
assistance rendered by Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Senior
Advocate pursuing us to take a middle path of rapprochement
of differences between two Senior Judges of District
Judiciary. Throughout his submission, he reminded us that
cooperation, not conflict, is the basic path of administration of
justice and such cooperation can only establish Rule of Law in
the society and justice delivered strictly on the principle of
Rule of Law inculcate in the mind of the other two pillars of
the Constitution - Executive and Legislature that they are not
Patna High Court MJC No.3868 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
above the law.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Dr. Anshuman, J : - I agree.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.12.2025
Uploading Date 16.12.2025
Transmission Date 16.12.2025
