Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32992 of 2009 Petitioner :- M/S Medina Frozen Foods Export Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- U.P. Pollution Control Board And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Maneesh Mehrotra,N.L.Maurya,P.C. Shukla
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner carries on the business of slaughter house. He had made an application for running a slaughter house at Munda Khera Road, Khurja, District Bulandshahar. The first respondent, vide order dated 27.3.2004, granted permission to the petitioner to establish the slaughter house but the permission was valid only upto the period of five years and the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs so that in the event any terms and conditions of the permission are flouted the bank guarantee may be forfeited. Further contention was that in the event the slaughter house was not started function within a period of two years in that event the validity of bank guarantee will also be extended. It is stated that in compliance of the order dated 27.3.2004, the petitioner submitted a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and the same was extended from time to time upto 11.3.2010. It is stated that after completion of slaughter house the petitioner was granted permission to run on trial basis upto 31.12.2008.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his bank guarantee is forfeited by the respondents arbitrarily and illegally.
A counter affidavit was filed wherein the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has violated the terms of bank guarantee as on 27.9.2008 when the inspection of the petitioner's premises was made, it was found that the petitioner has not started running the plant, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him on 01.12.2008 by the Board and after considering his reply dated 17.12.2008 the petitioner was granted fresh permission on his consent that a fresh Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs be furnished to the Board for establishment of rendering plant by 30.6.2008 and also earlier bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lacks was forfeited. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the said decision was taken with the consent of the petitioner. These subsequent facts and second bank guarantee was not even disclosed in the writ petition and the averment made in the counter affidavit in para nos. 6 to 11 has not been effectively replied in the rejoinder affidavit. Rather an evasive reply has been given by the petitioner in writ petition. The relief sought by the petitioner amongst others reads as under:
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition).
(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order."
A perusal of the reliefs sought indicates that no relief has been sought by the petitioner for refund of the amount forfeited under bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lacs in the writ petition in which no interim order was granted by this Court.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has given a consent for furnishing fresh bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lacs and he has not made any protest for forfeiture of earlier bank guarantee rather he had agreed for the fresh Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs, hence we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent forfeiting his bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lacs. We are also satisfied that the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions of the earlier bank guarantee as he did not set up the unit within the stipulated period and thus the Bank Guarantee was rightly encashed.
In view of the above, we do not find any other infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Puspendra