RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the State as well as learned counsel representing the private respondents.

2. This application has been preferred seeking modification of the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in Cr. W.J.C No. 431 of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the petitioner is not looking for any recall or review of the order on its merit. The prayer of the petitioner is only with respect to the observations of this Court occurring in Paragraph Nos. 34 and 35 of the order passed by this Court wherein this Court while directing the State to pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the petitioners observed that the same may be recovered from the then Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar. This Court also observed that the State Government should consider and take a view on the action of the then Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar and find out as to why appropriate action be not taken against him for directing such whimsical prosecution of the Bank Officials, in haste without following the R.B.I. guidelines which were well within his knowledge. Thereafter, the Court observed that it has come to a conclusion that it is a case of baseless prosecution, a whimsical act of the then Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar and has caused harassment to these petitioners, therefore, they will have liberty to seek their remedies for malicious prosecution in accordance with law.

3. Mr. Kumar Abhimanyu Pratap, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner who then happened to be the Principal Secretary of the Department had directed for lodgment of the First Information Report against the Bank Officials for valid reasons as according to him the Bank Officials were not remitting the money deposited in the Bank on account of the Department. Learned counsel submits that the writ application was preferred by the petitioners-respondent no.1 and others without impleading the Reserve Bank of India as party respondent. Learned Advocate submits that he is not praying for any modification of the order passed in writ petitions save and except the observations which may result in realization of cost amount from the petitioner and other steps may be taken by the State pursuant to the observation of this Court.

4. Dr. Anand Kumar, learned AC to AAG 3 representing the State submits that in fact, the State of Bihar had challenged the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.431 of 2016 and other analogous writ applications before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India giving rise to Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.10025-10031/2018. Those Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Petitions came for consideration before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India on 30.11.2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court, could not be persuaded to entertain the Special Leave to Appeal Petitions and those were dismissed in the following terms:-

"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.

We are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the special leave petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed."

5. Dr. Anand Kumar, learned AC to AAG 3 representing the State categorically submits that once the Judgment of this Court has been virtually affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State would have no option but to comply with the order by paying the cost to the petitioners and then the further follow-up action shall be taken in terms of the observations of the Court. He also submits that in terms of the order of the Court, the State Government would take steps for realizing the cost amount from the petitioner and is obliged to com