Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Panda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2017
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 1 of 42
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No.1812 of 2017
Order reserved on: 24-7-2017
Order delivered on: 11-8-2017
Arvind Panda, S/o Shri Pitanbar Panda, aged 45 yrs, R/o Koliatha,
Basudevpur, Mahanga, Distt. Cuttack, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
(C.G.)
3. District Excise Officer, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur (C.G.)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank, Through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1826 of 2017
Maheswar Samal S/o Shri Pitambar Samal Koliatha, Basudevpur,
Mahanga Cuttak, Distt-Cuttack Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 2 of 42
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1817 of 2017
Rajendra Prajapati S/o Shri Lallan Prajapati, R/o Dangar Tola,
Panki, Asehar Palamu, Jharkhand
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1821 of 2017
Praphul Gantayat S/o Shri Shridhar Gantayat, R/o Narsinghpur,
Patunia Badachana, Jaipur Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 3 of 42
WPC No.1858 of 2017
Kailash Nath Yadav S/o Shri Munni Lal Yadav, R/o Sargaon,
Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1859 of 2017
Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Nagendra Sahu, R/o Terua,
Baikunthpur Gopalganj, Distt-Gopalganj, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1860 of 2017
Ramashankar Singh S/o Shri Janakdev Singh, R/o Sadasi, Risiup,
Aurangabad, Distt-Aurangbad, Bihar
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 4 of 42
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1869 of 2017
Samarjit Ray, aged 44 yrs, S/o Shri Vipteshwar Ray, R/o Kusadi,
Pathara, Dumria Gaya, Distt-Gaya Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korea (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1878 of 2017
Uday Singh S/o Shri Durga Singh, aged 55 yrs, R/o H. No.608,
Manjha Khol 3, Dabhara, Janjgir-Champa (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 5 of 42
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1879 of 2017
Shiv Shankar S/o Shri Hari Lal, aged 36 yrs, R/o Ranai, Patna,
Distt-Koria (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Kawardha (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1880 of 2017
Bothram Bareth S/o Shri Dhaneshram Bareth, aged 59 yrs. R/o
Rajapara, Ward No.3, Sakti, Janjgir Champa
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 6 of 42
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1881 of 2017
Nimai Charan Das S/o Shri Kalptaru Das, aged 58 yrs, R/o
Koliatha, Basudevpur, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1882 of 2017
Biranchi Narayan Panda S/o Shri Baishnab Panda, aged 48 yrs,
R/o Koliatha, Basudebapur, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odiaha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 7 of 42
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur
---- Respondents
WPC No.1883 of 2017
Shivcharan Patva S/o Shri Surajdeen Patva, aged 50 yrs, R/o
Ranai, Patna, Distt-Koria (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur
---- Respondents
WPC No.1884 of 2017
Vishnu Vishwakarma S/o Shri Chhakouri Vishwakarma, aged 35
yrs, R/o Ranai, Patna, Korea, Distt-Korea (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 8 of 42
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1885 of 2017
Himanshu Singh S/o Shri Chetan Singh, aged 37 yrs, R/o Koliatha,
Basudevpur, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odiaha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1886 of 2017
Subhash Yadav S/o Shri Ransagar Yadav, aged 30 yrs, R/o 13,
Bishrampur, Dev Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 9 of 42
WPC No.1887 of 2017
Shishir Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Singh, aged 32 yrs,
R/o Koliatha, Basudevpur, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odiaha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1893 of 2017
Lokesh Shukla S/o Shri R.K. Shukla, aged 29 yrs, R/o Village-
Ranai, Patna, Distt-Korea (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Janjgir-Champa (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1919 of 2017
Satyendra Yadav S/o Shri Malitar Yadav, aged 39 yrs, R/o Umga,
Madanpur, Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 10 of 42
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1925 of 2017
Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, aged 41 yrs, R/o
H.No. 2/36, Budera, Tilda Kharora, Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1920 of 2017
Dinesh Kol S/o Shri R.R. Kol, aged 32 yrs, R/o Village-Ranai,
Patna, Distt-Korea (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 11 of 42
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1923 of 2017
Akhileshwar Singh S/o Shri Chandradev Singh, aged 50 yrs, R/o
Kuswaha, Ghatrain, Madanpur, Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1926 of 2017
Harishankar Prasad S/o Shri Baijnath Prasad, aged 43 yrs, R/o
Bedhni, Deo, Distt-Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 12 of 42
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1928 of 2017
Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri D.P.Gupta, aged 29 yrs, R/o
Tandava, Bankebajar, Distt - Gaya, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Raigarh (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1927 of 2017
Mahendra Yadav S/o Shri Devnandan Yadav, aged 35 yrs, R/o Bali
Bagaha, Banua, Dhivara, Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 13 of 42
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1917 of 2017
Manguli Charan Das S/o Shri K.C.Das, aged 37 yrs, R/o Jahal,
Chahapada, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Surguja (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1902 of 2017
Ashok Balabant Ray S/o Shri Mahendra Balabant Ray, aged 44
yrs, R/o Mulabasanta, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Surguja (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 14 of 42
WPC No.1899 of 2017
Mool Chand Nayak S/o Shri Puri Ram Nayak, Aged 31 yrs, R/o
Punjabi Colony, Dayalband, City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur
(CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1918 of 2017
Sunil Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Sidheswar Prasad Sinha, Aged 43 yrs,
R/o Ujjaini, Karma Lahang, Tandawa Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Surguja (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1929 of 2017
Dilip Kumar Palai S/o Shri K.C. Palai, aged 39 yrs, R/o Janta 104,
R.D.A., Telibandha Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 15 of 42
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Mungeli (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1894 of 2017
Vijay Singh S/o Shri Ram Vilas Singh, aged 40 yrs. R/o Ganghar,
Narachahi, Navinagar Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1903 of 2017
Ramnath Ram S/o Shri Rampravesh Ram, aged 40 yrs, R/o
Kataha, Jaygovind Nagar, Barun Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 16 of 42
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1924 of 2017
Balindra S/o Shri Rampravesh Chouhan, aged 41 yrs, R/o Village-
Ekgharwa, Israuli, Distt-Deoria, UP
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Janjgir-Champa (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1897 of 2017
Goutam Charan Bal S/o Shri Baishanav Charan Bal, aged 23 yrs,
R/o Alinagar, Basudevpur, Mahanga Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 17 of 42
3. District Excise Officer, District : Jashpur (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1907 of 2017
Mahendra Yadav S/o Shri Devnandan Yadav, aged 35 yrs, R/o Bali
Bigaha, Banua, Dhivara Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1908 of 2017
Gulab Chandra Patel S/o Shri Budae Ram Patel, aged 39 yrs, R/o
Ward No.-1, Near Doodh Dairy Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Baloda-Bazar (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 18 of 42
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1912 of 2017
Baidhar Nayak S/o Shri B.K. Nayak, aged 32 yrs. R/o Village-
Kaudukol, Mahanga, Distt-Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Janjgir-Champa (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1896 of 2017
Virendra Gupta S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Gupta, aged 34 yrs, R/o
Janiamela, Mirzapur, Mali Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Jashpur (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 19 of 42
WPC No.1904 of 2017
Praphul Gantayat S/o Shri Shridhar Gantayat, aged 27 yrs, R/o
Narsinghpur, Patunia Jaijpur, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Jashpur (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1898 of 2017
Sunil Kumar Paswan S/o Shri Mithilesh Paswan, aged 30 yrs, R/o
Village-Dihara, Obra, Distt-Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Surguja (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1921 of 2017
Kartik Swai S/o Shri U.C. Swai, aged 36 yrs, R/o Village-Koliatha,
Basudevpur Mahanga, Cuttak Odisha
---- Petitioner
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 20 of 42
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Janjgir Champa (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1905 of 2017
Khirod Behra S/o Shri Jairam Behara, aged 49 yrs, R/o Village-
Koliatha, Basudevpur Mahanga, Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Janjgir Champa (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1916 of 2017
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Rajeshwar Singh, aged 40 yrs, R/o
Nagrehahi, Karhari, Navinagr, Aurangabad, Bihar
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 21 of 42
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Surajpur(CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1909 of 2017
Montu Singh S/o Shri Kamta Prasad, aged 35 yrs, R/o Dayalband,
City Kotwali, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
WPC No.1906 of 2017
Manoj Kumar Samal S/o Shri Bidyadhar Samal, aged 44 yrs, R/o
Koliatha, Basudevpur, Mahanga, Cuttak, Odisha
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 22 of 42
3. District Excise Officer, District : Kawardha (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
AND
WPC No.1922 of 2017
Naval Kishore Pal S/o Shri Ramvilas Pal, aged 48 yrs, R/o
H.No.25/1, Indira Nagar, Tikarapara, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur,
Distt.-Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary to the Government of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-Raipur (CG)
2. The Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, Distt-Raipur
(CG)
3. District Excise Officer, District : Korba (CG)
4. Officer on Special Duty, Department of Excise, Raipur, Dist-Raipur
(CG)
5. Punjab and Sindh Bank through the Branch Manager, Punjab and
Sindh Bank, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 4 / State: -
Mr. Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No.5: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh and Mr. Ram Milan
Dey, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
1. The phenomenal common question involved in this batch of writ
petitions is, whether the conditional bank guarantee furnished by
the petitioners can be invoked by the respondent State without
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 23 of 42
specifying and fulfilling the conditions for invocation of bank
guarantee stipulated therein.
2. The essential facts needed to judge the correctness of the plea
raised at the Bar are as under: -
2.1) The petitioners were the licensees for retail sale of
foreign/country made liquor granted by the Department of Excise of
the State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh
Excise Act, 1915 read with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh
Excise Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country/Foreign
Liquor Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules, 2002'). Under the
provisions of the said Rules, 2002, the excise year for the subject
license was from 1-4-2016 to 31-3-2017 as such, the said contract
for license so granted stood expired on 31-3-2017.
2.2) Under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2002, 'letter of guarantee' was
furnished by the petitioners to the District Excise Officer with the
respondent No.5 Bank and in turn, the said Bank had undertaken
to pay the Government an amount mentioned therein in the event
of any loss or damage caused to or suffered or would be caused to
or suffered by the Government by reason of any breach of the said
licensees i.e. the petitioners of any of the terms or conditions
contained in the said license/agreement. The said letter of
guarantee was executed by the petitioners (licensees) for the
period up to 30-6-2017. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a
letter dated 23-6-2017 (Annexure P-4) filed along with the writ
petition to all the Assistant Commissioners/District Excise Officers
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 24 of 42
of the State to recover the balance amount of license fee/duty/
surcharge/penalty from the groups/licensees against whom it is
pending from their security amount/bank guarantee. In
continuation of the said direction, a further direction has been
issued vide letter dated 29-6-2017 (Annexure P-5) stating that after
recovery of the balance amount of license fee/duty/surcharge/
penalty, the remaining part of bank guarantee should remain intact.
It has further been directed that those bank guarantee which was
not used for any of the recoveries should get extended from the
bank and finally, a direction has been issued by the impugned
direction Annexure P-1 dated 30-6-2017 modifying the earlier
direction and it has been directed that if, for any reason, the
extension of bank guarantee is not possible, then the amount of
bank guarantee should be kept in custody by revoking the said
guarantee. The aforesaid memo dated 30-6-2017 (Annexure P-1)
has been challenged in this batch of writ petitions filed by the
respective petitioners.
2.3) Return has been filed by the State/respondents No.1 to 4
stating inter alia that the impugned memo Annexure P-1 has been
issued under the direction issued by the Commissioner of Central
Excise regarding imposition of service tax on the license fee of the
licensee. It has further been stated that though a direction has
been issued vide letter dated 29-6-2017 (Annexure R-9) to release
the bank guarantee of licensee after satisfying the dues of license
fee/duty/surcharge/TCS/penalty, but the letter dated 30-6-2017 has
been issued for revocation of bank guarantee only on the basis of
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 25 of 42
letter of the Central Excise Department, therefore, the writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
2.4) Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents
No.1 to 4 in one petition namely W.P.(C)No.1812/2017 and in
remaining all writ petitions, adoption memo have been filed, as
such, return filed in this case has been adopted in all other cases.
2.5) No rejoinder has been filed.
3. Since common question of law and fact is involved in this batch of
wrt petitions, they are clubbed together and heard analogously and
are being disposed of by this common order. Facts of the case
have been taken form the lead case bearing W.P.(C)
No.1812/2017 (Arvind Panda v. State of Chhattisgarh and others).
4. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in all the writ petitions, would submit that bank
guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the District Excise Officer
was a conditional bank guarantee under the terms mentioned
therein and therefore such a bank guarantee could not be directed
to be invoked/encashed by the State until the conditions stipulated
in the bank guarantee are satisfied. Therefore, the order Annexure
P-1 directing encashment of bank guarantee deserves to be
quashed.
5. Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
State/respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that on the basis of
instructions issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and
Service Tax such a direction Annexure P-1 has been issued and as
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 26 of 42
such, the writ petitions as framed and filed without impleading the
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, are not
maintainable and deserve to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the
record with utmost circumspection.
7. In order to understand the dispute, particularly the nature of bank
guarantee as to whether such a bank guarantee is a conditional
bank guarantee, the relevant conditions as mentioned in the
guarantee deed are required to be noticed which are reproduced
herein-below: -
BANK GUARANTEE BOND
1. ... We Punjab & Sind Bank Bilaspur (herein after
referred (indicate the name of bank) to as "the Bank") at
the request of Arvind Panda (Licensee/Contractor(s)) do
hereby undertake to pay to the Government an amount
not exceeding Rs.1,15,64,587/- against any loss or
damage caused to or suffered or would be caused to or
suffered by the Government by reason of any breach by
the said Licensee/Contractor(s) of any of the terms or
conditions contained in the said License/Agreement for
the shop Foreign/Country LIQUOR CONTRACTOR of
Patna.
2. We Punjab and Sind Bank Bilaspur do hereby
undertake to pay to the amounts due and payable under
this guarantee without any demur, merely on a demand
from the Government stating that the amount claimed is
due by way of loss or damage caused to or would be
caused to or suffered by the Government by reason of
breach by the Licensee/Contractor(s) of any of the terms
or conditions contained in the said License/Agreement
or by reason of the Licensee Contractor(s) failure to
perform the said Agreement. ..."
8. On a focused glance of the aforesaid conditions, it is quite vivid that
the State is empowered to encash the bank guarantee only if the
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 27 of 42
intimation is given by the Department stating the amount claimed
which is due by way of loss or damage caused to or would be
caused to or suffered by the Government by reason of breach by
the licensee/contractor of any of the terms or conditions contained
in the said license/agreement or by reason of the licensee
contractor failure to perform the said agreement. At this juncture, it
would also be appropriate to notice the memo Annexure P-1 dated
30-6-2017, which has been impugned by the petitioners and by
which the respondent State has sought invocation of bank
guarantee, which reads as under: -
dk;kZ y ; vkcdkjh vk;q D r] NRrhlx<] jk;iq j
dzekad@vkc-@Bsdk@2017@2931 jk;iqj] fnukad 30-06-2017
izfr]
mik;qDr vkkcdkjh] ftyk jk;iqj@
leLr lgk;d vk;qDr vkcdkjh@
leLr ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] NRrhlx<
fo"k;% yk;lsafl;ksa }kjk tek dh xbS cSad xkjaVh ds laca/k esaA
lanHkZ% bl dk;kZy; dk i= dzekad@vkc-@Bsdk@2017@2844] fnukad 23-
06-2017 ,oa i= dzekad@vkc-@Bsdk@2017@970] fnukad 29- 06-2017
&&%%0%%&&
lanfHkZr i= }kjk vkidks o"kZ 2016&17 ds yk;lsafl;ksa }kjk tek cSad
xkjaVh dks vkxkeh vkns'k rd uohuhd`r djk, tkus ds funsZ'k fn, x, FksA
iqu% ys[k gS fd ;fn fdUgha dkj.ko'k uohuhdj.k djk;k tkuk laHko u gks rks
tek cSad xkjaVh dks izfrlag`r (Revoke) dj jkf'k lqjf{kr j[kk tkuk
lqfuf'pr djsaA
¼ vkcdkjh vk;q D r }kjk vkn sf 'kr ½
fo'ks"k drZO;LFk vf/kdkjh
vkcdkjh foHkkx] N-x-] jk;iqj
9. The direction contained in the aforesaid letter is quite clear. It
neither states that the conditions stipulated in the bank guarantee
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 28 of 42
nor it specifies the terms of the deed of the guarantee. It nowhere
states that the amount claimed is due by way of loss or damage
caused to or would be caused to or suffered by the Government by
any reason of breach by the licensee contractor of any of the terms
and conditions contained in the said license/agreement or if the
licensee contractor has failed to perform the said agreement.
Therefore, it does not fulfill any of the requirements stipulated in
paras 1 and 2 of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners.
Nothing is stated in the said direction about the loss or damage
suffered by the Department.
10. It is settled law that a bank guarantee can only be encashed as per
its terms and the extent of default has to be averred and to that
extent it is encashable nothing more, nothing less and the court will
intervene to prevent any action on the part of the beneficiary which
may be contrary to the terms of the bank guarantee.
11. The law with regard to invocation of bank guarantee / encashment
of bank guarantee which received consideration from time to time
by the Supreme Court of India, is well settled, which may be
noticed herein profitably and gainfully as well.
11.1) In the matter of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State
of Bihar and others1, the Supreme Court has categorically held
that grant of injunction against invocation of bank guarantee shall
be in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee and the
amount covered by the guarantee shall be payable only if
obligations under the contract are not fulfilled by the contractor and
1 AIR 1999 SC 3710
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 29 of 42
held as under: -
"7. Now, a Bank Guarantee is the common mode of
securing payment of money in commercial dealings as
the beneficiary, under the Guarantee, is entitled to
realise the whole of the amount under that Guarantee in
terms thereof irrespective of any pending dispute
between the person on whose behalf the Guarantee was
given and the beneficiary. In contracts awarded to
private individuals by the Government, which involve
huge expenditure, as for example, construction
contracts, Bank Guarantees are usually required to be
furnished in favour of the Government to secure
payments made to the contractor as "Advance" from
time to time during the course of the contract as also to
secure performance of the work entrusted under the
contract. Such Guarantees are encashable in terms
thereof on the lapse of the contractor either in the
performance of the work or in paying back to the
"Government Advance", the Guarantee is invoked and
the amount is recovered from the Bank. It is for this
reason that the Courts are reluctant in granting an
injunction against the invocation of Bank Guarantee,
except in the case of fraud, which should be an
established fraud, or where irretrievable injury was likely
to be caused to the Guarantor. This was the principle
laid down by this Court in various decisions. In U.P. Co-
operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and
Engineers Pvt. Ltd., [1988] 1 SCC 174, the law laid down
in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase Manhattan Bank, (1984) 1
All ER 351 was approved and it was held that an
unconditional Bank Guarantee could be invoked in terms
thereof by the person in whose favour the Bank
Guarantee was given and the Courts would not grant
any injunction restraining the invocation except in the
case of fraud or irretrievable injury. In Svenska
Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome, (1994) 1 SCC
502/(1993 AIR SCW 4002 : AIR 1994 SC 626); Larsen
and Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
(1995) 6 SCC 68 : (1995 AIR SCW 4134 : AIR 1996 SC
334); Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. G.S.
Atwal and Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd., (1995) 6 SCC 76 :
(1995 AIR SCW 3821 : AIR 1996 SC 131); National
Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmore (P) Ltd.,
(1995) 4 SCC 515 : (1995 AIR SCW 430 : AIR 1996 SC
445); State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co.,
(1996) 1 SCC 735 : (1996 AIR SCW 895 : AIR 1996 SC
2367); Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v.
Tarapore and Co., (1996) 5 SCC 34 : (1996 AIR SCW
2861 : AIR 1996 SC 2268) as also in U.P. State Sugar
Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 30 of 42
568 : (1997 AIR SCW 694 : AIR 1997 SC 1644 : 1997 All
LJ 638), the same principle has been laid down and
reiterated.
8. What is important, therefore, is that the Bank
Guarantee should be in unequivocal terms,
unconditional and recite that the amount would be paid
without demur or objection and irrespective of any
dispute that might have cropped up or might have been
pending between the beneficiary under the Bank
Guarantee or the person on whose behalf the Guarantee
was furnished. The terms of the Bank Guarantee are,
therefore, extremely material. Since the Bank
Guarantee represents an independent contract between
the Bank and the beneficiary, both the parties would be
bound by the terms thereof. The invocation, therefore,
will have to be in accordance with the terms of the Bank
Guarantee; or else, the invocation itself would be bad.
13. This condition clearly refers to the original contract
between the HCCL and the defendants and postulates
that if the obligations, expressed in the contract, are not
fulfilled by HCCL giving to the defendants the right to
claim recovery of the whole or part of the "Advance
Mobilization Loan", then the Bank would pay the amount
due under the Guarantee to the Executive Engineer. By
referring specifically to Clause 9, the Bank has qualified
its liability to pay the amount covered by the Guarantee
relating to "Advance Mobilization Loan" to the Executive
Engineer only if the obligations under the contract were
not fulfilled by HCCL or the HCCL has misappropriated
any portion of the "Advance Mobilization Loan". It is in
these circumstances that the aforesaid clause would
operate and the whole of the amount covered by the
"Mobilisation Advance" would become payable on
demand. The Bank Guarantee thus could be invoked
only in the circumstances referred to in Clause 9
whenever the amount would become payable only if the
obligations are not fulfilled or there is misappropriation.
That being so, the Bank Guarantee could not be said to
be unconditional or unequivocal in terms so that the
defendants could be said to have had an unfettered right
to invoke that Guarantee and demand immediate
payment thereof from the Bank. This aspect of the
matter was wholly ignored by the High Court and it
unnecessarily interfered with the order of injunction,
granted by the single Judge, by which the defendants
were restrained from invoking the Bank Guarantee."
11.2) Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the matter of Himadri
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 31 of 42
Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. 2 succinctly
held, after considering the law, as under: -
"10. The law relating to grant or refusal to grant
injunction in the matter of invocation of a bank guarantee
or a letter of credit is now well settled by a plethora of
decisions not only of this Court but also of the different
High Courts in India. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation v.
Sumac International Ltd.3 this court considered its
various earlier decisions. In this decision, the principle
that has been laid down clearly on the enforcement of a
bank guarantee or a letter of credit is that in respect of a
bank guarantee or a letter of credit which is sought to be
encashed by a beneficiary, the bank giving such a
guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms
irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer.
Accordingly this Court held that the courts should be
slow in granting an order of injunction to restrain the
realization of such a bank guarantee. It has also been
held by this Court in that decision that the existence of
any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a
ground to restrain the enforcement of bank guarantees
or letters of credit. However, this court made two
exceptions for grant of an order of injunction to restrain
the enforcement of a bank guarantee or a letter of credit;
(i) fraud committed in the notice of the bank which would
vitiate the very foundation of guarantee; and (ii) injustice
of the kind which would make it impossible for the
guarantor to reimburse himself.
14. From the discussions made hereinabove relating
to the principles for grant or refusal to grant of injunction
to restrain enforcement of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter
of Credit, we find that the following principles should be
noted in the matter of injunction to restrain the
encashment of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit :-
(i) While dealing with an application for injunction
in the course of commercial dealings, and when an
unconditional Bank Guarantee or Letter of Credit is
given or accepted, the Beneficiary is entitled to
realize such a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of
Credit in terms thereof irrespective of any pending
disputes relating to the terms of the contract.
(ii) The Bank giving such guarantee is bound to
honour it as per its terms irrespective of any
dispute raised by its customer.
2 (2007) 8 SCC 110
3 (1997) 1 SCC 568
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 32 of 42
(iii) The Courts should be slow in granting an order
of injunction to restrain the realization of a Bank
Guarantee or a Letter of Credit.
(iv) Since a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit is
an independent and a separate contract and is
absolute in nature, the existence of any dispute
between the parties to the contract is not a ground
for issuing an order of injunction to restrain
enforcement of Bank Guarantees or Letters of
Credit.
(v) Fraud of an egregious nature which would
vitiate the very foundation of such a Bank
Guarantee or Letter of Credit and the beneficiary
seeks to take advantage of the situation.
(vi) Allowing encashment of an unconditional Bank
Guarantee or a Letter of Credit would result in
irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties
concerned."
11.3) Further, in this context, the judgment rendered by Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vinitec
Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. 4 may be
referred herein in which Their Lordships referred with approval the
judgment rendered in Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd.'s case
(supra) and held as under: -
"12. It is equally well settled in law that bank guarantee
is an independent contract between bank and the
beneficiary thereof. The bank is always obliged to
honour its guarantee as long as it is an unconditional
and irrevocable one. The dispute between the
beneficiary and the party at whose instance the bank
has given the guarantee is immaterial and of no
consequence. In BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd. this
Court held: (SCC pp. 733-34, para 10)
"10. There are, however, two exceptions to this
rule. The first is when there is a clear fraud of
which the bank has notice and a fraud of the
beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The
fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate
the entire underlying transaction. The second
exception to the general rule of non-intervention is
4 (2008) 1 SCC 544
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 33 of 42
when there are 'special equities' in favour of
injunction, such as when 'irretrievable injury' or
'irretrievable injustice' would occur if such an
injunction were not granted. The general rule and
its exceptions has been reiterated in so many
judgments of this Court, that in U.P. State Sugar
Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd. (hereinafter
'U.P. State Sugar Corpn.') this Court, correctly
declared that the law was 'settled'.""
11.4) The principle of law laid down in Himadri Chemicals
Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) has been followed recently by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat Maritime Board v. L & T
Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. and others5 in which it
has been held as under: -
"... The bank guarantee is a separate contract and is
not qualified by the contract on performance of the
obligations. No doubt, in terms of the bank guarantee
also, the invocation is only against a breach of the
conditions in the LOI. ..."
11.5) A Division Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter of G.V.
Pratap Reddy v. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority,
Bhopal and others6 while somewhat dealing with identical facts
situation held that the bank guarantee is a conditional one, such a
bank guarantee could not have been directed to be encashed until
the conditions mentioned in the bank guarantee are satisfied. The
Division Bench speaking through R.K. Gupta, J, held as under: -
"6. On the basis of the aforesaid two conditions it is
clear that the bank guarantee is a conditional one and
bank was required to encash the bank guarantee only if
the intimation is given by the department stating that the
amount claimed is due by way of loss or damage caused
to or suffered by reason of any breach by the said
Contractor of any of the terms or conditions contained in
the said agreement or by reason of the Contractor's
failure to perform the said agreement. It is also clear
5 AIR 2016 SC 4502
6 W.P.No.10030/2008 decided on 29-6-2009
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 34 of 42
that the bank has undertaken to pay an amount not
exceeding Rs.34,64,000/- against any loss or damage
caused to or suffered or would be caused to or suffered
by any authority by reason of any breach by the said
contractor of any of the terms or conditions contained in
the said agreement.
13. According to us, the law laid down by the Apex
Court as aforesaid has the full application in the present
case. We have also taken a similar view in the case of
Sigma Construction v. M.P. Rural Road Development
Authority & others, W.P.No.11022/2008 decided on
30.4.2009 wherein similar question in relation to
encashment of bank guarantee was involved and we
held that if the department has not written anything to
the bank while directing the bank to encash the bank
guarantee, the bank guarantee cannot be invoked. It is
not stated that the contractor has failed to perform the
work contract then in absence of any such reference
resulting into loss or damage caused or to be caused,
the bank is not under a legal obligation to encash the
bank guarantee. We also held that the bank guarantee
was not entitled to be invoked. The facts and
circumstances of the present case are also similar to the
case already decided by this Court in Sigma
Construction (supra)."
11.6) A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s.
Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation and another7 after examining the decision of the
Supreme Court and its own decisions observed,
"... the basic principles that emerge on a resume of the
case law on the subject are : firstly, that in any given
case, what is of relevance is terms of the bank
guarantee, and that in fact constitutes the only guiding
factor ; and secondly, the next determining point would
be the manner in which the bank guarantee had been
invoked by the beneficiary, and in that context the
terms of the demand letter assume great importance
as well as significance."
11.7) In the matter of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. M/s. R.S.
Builders (India) Ltd. and others8 wherein the Orissa High Court
7 DRJ 1991(20)
8 AIR 1991 Orissa 314
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 35 of 42
speaking through B.L. Hansaria, CJ (as then His Lordship was),
held as under: -
"9. From the aforesaid decisions it is clear that
Court's interference in enforcing bank guarantees must
be minimal. It is in the case of fraud or to prevent
irretrievable injustice that Courts interfere to prevent
enforcement of bank guarantees. Of course, a bank
guarantee has to satisfy the conditions laid down
therein before a bank can be called upon to make
payment as per the guarantee. If the terms of the bank
guarantee be unconditional, the bank has to pay
without demur. The payment of bank guarantee
cannot be made subject to the claims and counter-
claims arising out of the main contract between the
parties. If a bank guarantee were to state that payment
shall be made notwithstanding any dispute between
the parties, the bank would be obliged to do so. To
determine whether a bank guarantee is conditional or
unconditional, it is the document guarantee which is to
be scanned.
11. In view of the law noticed earlier, we would state
that the aforesaid type of bank guarantee has to be
regarded as independent of the contract between the
parties and the same can be enforced without
reference to any claim or counter-claim arising out of
the main contract between the parties. It is also to be
regarded as independent of the adjudication of
disputes raised and proposed to be referred to
arbitration. But then, the bank guarantees at hand
cannot be regarded as absolutely unconditional
inasmuch as the payment under guarantees is
dependent upon the contractor committing default in
performing any of the terms and conditions of the
contract or in the payment of any money due to the
owner or in case the amount at the specified rates
cannot be deducted from the running bills of the
contractor by the owner towards the payment of
Mobilisation Advance. As to the fulfillment of those
conditions, we would state that the statement of the
beneficiary would be taken at its face value unless the
contractor be in a position to establish that the stand of
the beneficiary is actuated by fraud, misrepresentation,
deliberate suppression of material facts or the like
which would give rise to special equities in favour of
the contractor. So, in the absence of a case of fraud,
misrepresentation, deliberate suppression of material
facts or the like, to establish which a heavy onus lies
on the contract, a bank guarantee like the one at hand
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 36 of 42
has to be honoured by the bank and the beneficiary
cannot be restrained from enforcement. Further,
decision about fraud, etc. has to be arrived at by the
court approached by the contractor to restrain the
beneficiary form enforcing the bank guarantee. The
court cannot await for this purpose the finding of the
arbitrator."
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Cooperative Federation
Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. 9 approved the
observations of Lord Denning, M.R., that "a bank which gives a
performance guarantee must honour that guarantee according to
its terms. It is not concerned in the least with the relations between
the supplier and the customer; nor with the question whether the
supplier has performed his contractual obligation or not; nor with
the question whether supplier is in default or not. The bank must
pay according to its guarantee, on demand if so stipulated without
proof or conditions."
13. From the afore-stated judgments of the Supreme Court, it is quite
vivid that in order to invoke the conditional bank guarantee, the
conditions/terms of the bank guarantee i.e. default, if any, has to be
expressly averred in order/direction memo encashing bank
guarantee, nothing more and nothing less is acceptable, before it
can be directed to be encashed.
14. In the present case, it appears that the default (if any) in the
conditions/terms of bank guarantee while directing the bank to
encash the same are not averred in the memo directing
encashment of bank guarantee, whereas the bank guarantee was
liable to be invoked against any loss or damage caused to or
9 (1988) 1 SCC 174
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 37 of 42
suffered or would be caused to or suffered by the authority by
reason of any breach by the licensee / contractor of any of the
terms and conditions contained in the said agreement. There is no
averment in the memo dated 30-6-2017 (Annexure P-1) issued by
respondent No.4 intimating the bank for encashment of bank
guarantee regarding loss or damage caused to or suffered or
would be caused to or suffered by the authority by reason of any
breach by the licensee/ contractor of any of the terms and
conditions contained in the said agreement. It records no reason
as to why the bank guarantee is directed to be invoked. It simply
states the ground that it is not possible to renew the bank
guarantee, it has been directed to be invoked. Thus, in absence of
any averment in the impugned order with reference to any loss or
damage caused to or suffered or would be caused to or suffered by
the authority by reason of any breach by the said contractor of any
of the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement, bank
guarantee was not liable to be invoked and it could have not been
directed to be invoked.
15. However, the matter can be considered from one more other angle.
Rule 13 of the Rules, 2002, provides for payment of license fee
and security amount. Rules 13 provides as under: -
"13. Payment of Licence-fee and security amount.--
In case an applicant is selected as licensee, he shall
deposit one month's amount of licence fee and the
security amount within three days of being informed of
his selection. If he fails to deposit the amount of one
month licence fee and security amount within prescribed
period, his selection shall stand cancelled and the said
licensee shall be debarred from holding any excise
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 38 of 42
licence in future, anywhere in the State and his
application fee shall also stand forfeited. A consolidated
list of such defaulters under this rule, along with their
complete addresses shall be forwarded by the District
Excise officer/Asstt. Commissioner to the Excise
Commissioner, who will circulate the consolidated list of
the State to all the licensing authorities of the State."
16. Security was furnished by way of bank guarantee as provided
under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2002. Rule 21 of the Rules, 2002
deals with adjustment/refund of security amount. It states as
under: -
"21.Adjustment/refund of security Amount.--The
security amount shall be liable to adjustment against the
settlement of dues and claims to the government of
licence fee/duty penalty or any other dues. Security
amount shall be refundable after the final settlement of
all the claims and dues to the State Government."
17. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Rules would make it clear
that licensee should furnish the security which can be adjusted
against the settlement of dues and claims regarding the contract
for which license was awarded and it is refundable after settlement
of all the claims and dues to the State Government. It is, thus,
crystal clear that excepting the claims and dues of the State
Government the security, as furnished by the licensee, cannot be
utilized for any other purpose. The contention of the State that
direction has been issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise
regarding imposition of service tax on the license fees of the
licensee deserves to be noticed for rejection. Firstly, in the order
Annexure P-1 no such reason has been assigned by respondent
No.4 and even that is not the terms/conditions in the bank
guarantee issued by the Bank, therefore it cannot be the reason for
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 39 of 42
directing invocation of bank guarantee and for that reason, the
bank guarantee cannot be invoked and encashed.
18. In view of above-mentioned analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioners which was conditional in nature, cannot be directed to
be encashed dehors the terms / conditions of bank guarantee by
the impugned memo (Annexure P-1) and the reason assigned
subsequently in the returns filed is unacceptable, that cannot be
made basis for invoking and directing encashment of bank
guarantee. Such a direction issued by the Commissioner, Excise
is contrary to the terms/conditions of bank guarantee, and irrational
and arbitrary as well.
19. As a fallout and consequence of above-stated discussion, the
impugned memo (Annexure P-1) in all the above-stated writ
petitions, particulars of bank guarantee of which are enclosed as
Annexure 'A' with this order, are quashed and it is held that the
respondents/State are not entitled to invoke / encash the bank
guarantee.
20. Accordingly, the present petitions stand allowed. There shall be no
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Soma
W.P.(C)No.1812/2017
and other connected matters
Page 40 of 42
ANNEXURE 'A'
PARTICULARS OF BANK GUARANTEE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Particulars of Bank Date of Date of Petition No. Guarantee issuance impugned memo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1812 Arvind Panda 27-04-2016 30-06-2017 0298 - BG 0035-16 1817 Rajendra Prajapati 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0024-16 1821 Praphul Gantayat 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0031-16 1826 Maheshwar Samal 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0026-16 1858 Kailash Nath Yadav 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0032-16 1859 Rajesh Kumar Sahu 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0029-16 1860 Ramashankar Singh 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0030-16 1869 Samarjit Ray 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0027-16 1878 Uday Singh 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0047-16 1879 Shiv Shankar 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0028-16 1880 Bothram Bareth 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0042-16 1881 Nimai Charan Das 22-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0078-16 1882 Biranchi Narayan Panda 25-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0091-16 1883 Shivcharan Patva 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0040-16 1884 Vishnu Vishwakarma 22-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0082-16 W.P.(C)No.1812/2017 and other connected matters Page 41 of 42 1885 Himanshu Singh 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0051-16 1886 Subhash Yadav 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0050-16 1887 Shishir Kumar 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0049-16 1893 Lokesh Shukla 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0008-16 1894 Vijay Singh 27-04-2016 30-06-2017 0298-BG 0021-16 1896 Virendra Gupta 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0066-16 1897 Goutam Charan 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0063-16 1898 Sunil Kumar Paswan 27-04-2016 30-06-2017 0298-BG 0023-16 1899 Mool Chand Nayak 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0004-16 1902 Ashok Balabant Ray 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0006-16 1903 Ramnath Ram 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0005 -16 1904 Praphul Gantayat 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0065-16 1905 Khirod Behra 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0010-16 1906 Manoj Kumar Samal 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0033-16 1907 Mahendra Yadav 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0003-16 1908 Gulab Chandra Patel 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0036-16 1909 Montu Singh 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0007-16 W.P.(C)No.1812/2017 and other connected matters Page 42 of 42 1912 Baidhar Nayak 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0009-16 1916 Ravindra Singh 25-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0092-16 1917 Manguli Charan 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0062-16 1918 Sunil Kumar Sinha 22-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0077-16 1919 Satyendra Yadav 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0037-16 1920 Dinesh Kol 22-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0079-16 1921 Kartik Swai 20-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0012-16 1922 Naval Kishore 27-04-2016 30-06-2017 0298-BG 0022 -16 1923 Akhileshwar Singh 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0048-16 1924 Balindra 18-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0011-16 1925 Sanjeev Kumar 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0044-16 1926 Harishankar Prasad 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0045-16 1927 Mahendra Yadav 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0039-16 1928 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 21-04-2016 30-06-2017 0561-BG 0046-16 1929 Dilip Kumar Palai 27-04-2016 30-06-2017 0298-BG 0036-16 **** **** ****