Allowed

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife of Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2022CW/17598/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the illegal withholding of a Bank Guarantee by state authorities and the bank after litigation concluded. The court ordered release of the guarantee with interest and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Order to District Supply Officer to remit Bank Guarantee papers to Bank within 15 days; Bank to release guarantee with interest within 4 weeks. Respondents 1 & 2 to pay Rs.50,000 cost.

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife of Late Shri Om Prakash… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17598/2018

¶3

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife Of Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, Aged About 58 Years, Proprietor of M/s Jindal Trading Company, Shop No. 54, New Anaj Mandi, Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.), At Present Resident Of Plot No., Sector No.1, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Food And Civil Supplies Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

District Supply Officer, Jaipur District, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Bank Of Baroda, Power House Road, Jaipur Through Its Branch Manager

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Ajay Gupta, Adv. : Mr.Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy. G.C.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

14/09/2022

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the action of the respondents of illegally withholding Bank Guarantee of Rs.4,37,000/-, issued by the Bank of Baroda, Power House Road, Jaipur.

¶15

The petitioner also prays for release of Bank Guarantee in her favour with adequate compensation to be paid to her for illegally withholding Bank Guarantee.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a widow lady of late Om Prakash Agarwal, who was earlier proprietor of M/s.Jindal Trading Company Ltd., Chomu and

¶17

(2 of 8)

¶18

[CW-17598/2018]

¶19

husband of the petitioner died on 30.09.2016 and after his death, the petitioner became proprietor of the firm M/s.Jindal Trading Company.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s firm was doing business of food-grains under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the order of 1980”) and as such, while carrying out the business, the petitioner’s firm had kept 437 bags of gram in the warehouse.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the enforcement staff of District Supply Officer, Jaipur seized the aforesaid bags of gram from the petitioner’s firm on 12.12.1998 and District Collector vide its order dated 09.03.1999 passed an order of confiscation of bags.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the District Collector, Jaipur dated 09.03.1999 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur under Section 6 (c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) and the said appeal finally came to be allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 22.05.1999, wherein the Appellate Court quashed the order of confiscation and notice issued under Section 6(B) of the Order of 1980 was also quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court further directed to return the goods belonging to the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-District Supply Officer, felt aggrieved against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3933/1999 and initially an ex-parte order was passed on 17.08.1999.

¶24

(3 of 8)

¶25

[CW-17598/2018]

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that on an application being filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the Single Bench passed an order on 16.05.2000 and directed that all those traders, who have not received their goods were to give Bank Guarantee and then they could receive their goods.

¶27

Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner furnished Bank Guarantee dated 01.06.2000 in the sum of Rs.3,37,000/- and the same was submitted in the office of the District Supply Officer, Jaipur on 01.06.2000.

¶28

Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition filed by State and other similar situated persons was decided by the Single Judge vide judgment dated 02.03.2007, whereby the Criminal Revision Petitions as well as the Writ Petitions, challenging the order of the District Judge, came to be allowed and the order passed by the District Collector was maintained.

¶29

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3933/1999 filed D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.460/2007 and the Division Bench admitted the appeal on 20.09.2007 and the appellant was directed to furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee thereafter. The Division Bench also passed an order that if the Bank Guarantee was furnished by the appellant, then in such eventuality, no coercive action was to be taken.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per directions of the Division Bench, the petitioner submitted Bank Guarantee of Rs.4,37,000/- in the office of the District Supply Officer, Jaipur District, Jaipur and in fact two Bank Guarantees i.e. (i) in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- & (ii) another in the sum of

¶31

(4 of 8)

¶32

[CW-17598/2018]

¶33

Rs.3,37,000/- issued by the Bank of Baroda, Power House Road, Jaipur, were submitted.

¶34

Learned counsel submitted that the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner were renewed from time to time and as such proof of the same has also been filed with the writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel submitted that the special appeal filed by the petitioner was finally decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.05.2011 and the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and remanded the matter to the Single Bench to decide the writ petition in accordance with law.

¶36

Learned counsel submitted that after remand of the case, the Single Judge again decided the writ petition vide order dated 25.02.2014 and liberty was granted to the respondent-State to file Criminal Revision Petition and interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, was to be continued for a period of one month.

¶37

Learned counsel submitted that after dismissal of the writ petition, husband of the petitioner submitted several representations to release the Bank Guarantee given by him and when no action was taken, then notice for demand of justice was served and in reference to notice, Bank of Baroda informed to the petitioner that Bank Guarantee can only be returned after receipt of original Bank Guarantee held by the District Supply Officer, Jaipur.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner also came to know about filing of S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.1144/2015 before this Court and the same also came to be dismissed vide peremptory order dated 03.07.2017 as the

¶39

(5 of 8)

¶40

[CW-17598/2018]

¶41

respondents failed to pursue the remedy before this Court in the Revision Petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unfortunately husband of the petitioner expired on 30.09.2016 and thereafter petitioner requested the Authorities to release the Bank Guarantee and when no action was taken, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the litigation had come to an end, even after dismissal of the Revision Petition before this Court, the respondents were required to refund the Bank Guarantee to the petitioner and whatever interest amount, accrued from the Bank Guarantee given by the petitioner, was also required to be given back to the petitioner.

¶44

Learned counsel submitted that the direction, which was given to the petitioner initially before the Single Bench and later on by the Division Bench was duly complied with and if the order of Additional Sessions Judge has not been set aside by any Higher Court, the respondents were bound to follow the directions, which were given by the Additional Sessions Judge.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the interim order passed by the Division Bench was to the extent of giving fresh Bank Guarantee and the petitioner having fully complied with the said directions, the respondents had no choice except to release the Bank Guarantee immediately, after litigation was over.

¶46

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr.Bharat Singh Gurjar appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, while accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner, was pursued in a proper manner before this Court and

¶47

(6 of 8)

¶48

[CW-17598/2018]

¶49

since the Division Bench had remanded the matter back to Single Bench and thereafter Single Bench permitted the Department to file Revision Petition, as such the Authorities filed Revision Petition before this Court and at least no fault can be found with the respondents of not releasing the Bank Guarantee till the revision petition was filed and the same came to be decided.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Bank Guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner, was not released by the Bank and as such no right can be claimed by the petitioner for releasing the Bank Guarantee.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that if this Court finds that the District Supply Officer has not taken any appropriate steps to release the Bank Guarantee, liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the said Officer and needful may be done as per law.

¶52

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶53

This Court finds that once the order of the Division Bench of giving Bank Guarantee, as per order dated 20.09.2007 was complied with by the petitioner and Bank Guarantee was given of Rs.4,37,000/-, the respondents were under legal obligation to release the Bank Guarantee in favour of the petitioner, after litigation had come to an end.

¶54

This Court further finds that once the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, passed in appeal filed by the petitioner, has not been set aside or modified by any Court, then the very order of confiscation of goods of the petitioner’s firm, goes away and there remains no justification with the Authorities to act contrary to the

¶55

(7 of 8)

¶56

[CW-17598/2018]

¶57

direction given to the District Supply Officer while deciding the appeal of the firm.

¶58

The submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent that the Department was taking recourse to the legal remedy up to 2017 and as such the Bank Guarantee could not have been released by the Authorities, this Court finds that such stand of the respondent is a lame excuse and they cannot deny any person/citizen to get their original amount, which they had paid by way of Bank Guarantee, as per directions of the Court.

¶59

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that even now the petitioner can approach the respondents and action may be taken as per law, suffice it to say by this Court that the Bank Guarantee was given by the petitioner on 18.10.2007 and now almost 15 years have passed and now relegating the petitioner back to the respondents, will be absolutely unjustified.

¶60

Accordingly, this Court finds that action of the respondents in withholding the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified from any stretch of imagination.

¶61

This Court accordingly allows the present petition with a direction to the respondent-District Supply Officer, Jaipur District, Jaipur to immediately send the original Bank Guarantee papers/bonds to the respondent Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, Power House Road, Jaipur within a period of fifteen days and after receipt of the original papers of the Bank Guarantee from the District Supply Officer, the respondent Bank will release the Bank Guarantee along-with prevailing rate of interest in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

¶62

This Court finds that the petitioner is a widow, whose husband has expired and now she is forced to run from pillar to

¶63

(8 of 8)

¶64

[CW-17598/2018]

¶65

post for claiming her justified claim and the Authorities have acted arbitrarily in depriving her from her original claim and accordingly the petitioner is held entitled for receiving a cost of Rs.50,000/from the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶66

Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 will pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

¶67

The present writ petition stands allowed, in view of the aforesaid directions.

¶68

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶69

Monika/42

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife of Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife of Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Usha D. Rana Vs Raj State Coop.Tribunal,Jaipur

Priyanka Yadav Vs State Education Departmentors

Karuna Bansal W/O Shri Avinish Bansal Vs Dalpat Singh Naruka S/O Shri Rajendra Singh

Yogesh Jangid S/O Shri Ramesh Sharma Vs Secretary, Board of Secondary

Abhishek Bairwa S/O Kanwar Lal Bairwa Vs Kanwar Lal Bairwa Son of Chiman Lal Bairwa

Ravindra Singh Son of Karani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan