Rohtas District's In-Charge, Legal Section challenges orders by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas, directing attachment of Office of the Collector, Rohtas

Rohtas District's In-Charge, Legal Section has challenged the order by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas, directing attachment of Office of the Collector, Rohtas in the Patna High Court and other orders. I In the case Shashi Shankar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Anr., the Respondents no. 2 is Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas. Notably, three I.A.s too have been filed for staying the orders of the Tribunal, expunging the adverse remarks against the Rohtas District's In-Charge, Legal Section and for urgent hearing of the case. The same is listed for hearing on April 27, 2026 before the Court of Justice Ajit Kumar.    

 

The petition raises following question of law and facts as to i) Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can impose personal liability upon a government officer who is not a party to the proceedings?; ii) Whether recovery of an award can be directed to Collector without issuance of certificate by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas to Collector under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act?; ii) Whether a  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can direct salary deduction and service-book entry against a government officer who is not party to proceeding?; iv) Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can order salary deduction and service-book entry of officer who is not party to proceeding?; v) Whether adverse remarks can be recorded against a person without giving him an opportunity of hearing; vi) Whether adverse remarks can be recorded without hearing the affected officer?; vii) Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has any supervisory or disciplinary jurisdiction over a District Collector or petitioner?; viii) Whether recovery under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be initiated without issuance of a statutory recovery certificate?; ix) Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas can impose fine or penalty on an executive authority in absence of express statutory power?; x) Whether such action violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers?; xi) Whether order passed by respondent is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires,void ab initio and unconstitutional?; xii) Whether collector can be compelled to recover award amount even though details of assets of decree debtor has not been provided to collector?; and xiii) Whether collector can be coerced to deposit  fine/penalty/cost from her salary?

 

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 22.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas in Execution Case No. 01/2014, expunging all adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner in the orders by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas. The petition prays for setting aside of the direction imposing ₹10,000 penalty, salary deduction, entry in service book and registration of criminal miscellaneous case. It prays for removal of the observations contained in the orders which may affect the service career of the petitioner and for declaring that the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas has no authority to issue show-cause notice or impose penalty upon the petitioner. It seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the show-cause notice issued by  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas. 

 

The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated February 17, 2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas imposing fine of ₹10,000/- as adjournment cost upon the petitioner and directing deduction of fine from salary, directing entry in service book and directing registration of criminal miscellaneous case;  It prays for quashing the order dated December 23, 2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas  imposing fine of ₹10,000/- upon the Collector, Rohtas. It seeks quashing the order dated January 22, 2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas passing adverse remarks against the petitioner. The petitioner declares that the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas has no authority to issue show-cause notice or impose penalty upon the petitioner.  

 

The petition seeks a declaration that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas has no authority to attach office of the Collector and direct department proceeding and disciplinary action against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas and seeks imposition of cost on Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas from taking any coercive action against the petitioner and the Collector. The petition seeks interim stay of the orders by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas during pendency of the writ petition. 

 

The writ petition no. 6117 of 2026 filed by Dr. Gopal Krishna, the advocate for the petitioner in the High Court on March 31, 2026.  

In Branch Manager (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (2026) Execution Case No. 01/2014, CIS No. - 03/2014, the Court of Anil Kumar, District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram passed an order dated April 21, 2026 which records that writ petition no. 6117 of 2026 is pending in the High Court. Notably, the judge is Respondent no. 2 in the writ petition. In the Court of Anil Kumar, District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV it was submitted that since the Court itself is a party in the writ petition in the High Court, further proceedings ought to await the decision of the High Court. 

It is apparent that the District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram is acting without factoring in the pending proceedings in the High Court. Instead of waiting for the outcome of the writ petition in High Court, it has issued show cause notice to Collector, Rohtas asking her to explain as to why the trial Court should not recommend contempt proceedings to the High Court. The trial Court has fixed April 28, 2026 for further proceedings. 

Tribunal imposes fine of Rs10,000 on Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi

  

Earlier, on March 10, 2026, the Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram, had also imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi, Jharkhand for his failure to comply with the his directions in an execution proceeding. The Tribunal also directed that the fine be deposited along with the compensation amount before the court. The order was passed after DC of Ranchi failed to respond to the its official letters, reminders and show-cause notices issued earlier in the matter. The action was related to execution case no. 13/2025 filed by Suraj Sah, a resident of Akorhi Gola in Rohtas district. Sah had filed a motor vehicle accident claim case in the Tribunal. In its judgment dated February 28, 2025, the Tribunal directed an insurance company in Ranchi to pay approximately Rs 8.5 lakh as compensation to the claimant.