Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahald Trading Company vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2020
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
..1..
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP No.10770/2020
(Prahald Trading Company Vs. State of M.P. and another)
Jabalpur, Dated : 19.08.2020
Hearing convened through Video Conferencing:
Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the following reliefs have been claimed :
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may further kind enough to call for the entire record pertaining to case in petitioner.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that there is no liability for payment of interest on the petitioner and further quash the notices issued by the respondent No.2 Annexure P/8.
(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 15.07.2020 and other letters as per Annexure P/9, after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(iv) That, any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit may be granted to the petitioner.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation vide Annexure P-9 has been submitted to the respondent No.2 on 15.7.2020. It was urged that no decision thereon has been taken so far. It was claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank Guarantee which has been furnished by the petitioner be not encashed till decision is taken by the respondents on the representation. However, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the claim of the petitioner.
After perusal of the writ petition and hearing learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage by directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 15.07.2020 Annexure P-9 submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or ..2..
its representative through Video Conferencing by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.
As an interim measure, it is directed that the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till passing of order by the respondents. It is made clear that grant of this interim prayer shall not be construed to be expression of any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C/-
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2020.08.20
14:41:33 +05'30'