Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jindal Steel @ Power Ltd. vs Union Of India on 19 November, 2014
1
Writ Petition No.21952 of 2013
Writ Petition No.2893 of 2014
Writ Petition No.7178 of 2014
19.11.2014
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with
Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel and Ms. Saman Ahsan,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.21952/2013.
Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel with Shri
Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.2893/2014.
Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No.7178/2014.
Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondent No.1.
Shri Dinesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The core issue raised in these petitions as has been rightly contended by the counsel for the respective parties is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary & others in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012 decided on 24.09.2014.
2Our attention was invited to the order passed by the Delhi High Court dealing with similar grievance as made in the present petitions. The Delhi High Court after recording the statement of the Government of India, proceeded to pass order on 30.10.2014 to dispose of the petitions pending before that Court.
Counsel for the Government of India states on instructions that the Government of India has no objection for disposal of the petitions on the same terms. The operative order passed by the Delhi High Court reads thus :-
"1. That the petitioners would keep alive all bank guarantees that are currently alive in favour of the respondents, for a further period of three months.
2. That the respondents shall take a decision in respect of each individual case whether the bank guarantees ought to be invoked or released within a period of eight weeks from today.
3. The said decision of the respondents would be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one week, thereafter.
4. In the event, the respondents decide to invoke the bank guarantee or pursue its encashment, the respondents shall not do so for a period of two weeks after communicating their decision to the petitioners, to enable the petitioners to take appropriate action in accordance with law."3
However, in our opinion, Clause 1 of the order must read as follows :-
"That the petitioners shall keep alive all Bank Guarantees that are currently in force, in favour of the respondents initially for a period of three months. If the Government of India fails to take any decision within three months, the petitioner may have to extend the said Bank Guarantees for a further period of one month there from, within which period the Government of India must take a positive decision one way or the other."
The rest of the conditions Nos. 2 to 4 found in the operative order of the Delhi High Court will apply even in the present set of cases.
In the event of any difficulty in enforcing these directions or for extension of time, that request be made to the Court well in advance by the concerned party and in any case two weeks before the expiry of the outer limit provided in the aforesaid arrangement.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of on the abovesaid terms.
Cc as per rules.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Miss Vandana Kasrekar)
Chief Justice Judge
AM.
4