IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9132 of 2008 Between: M/s. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. "Bagadiya Mansion", 15/63 Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgargh, Rep by its Assistant Manager Mr. Ahsan Khan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Excise (Exports Customs House, Port Avenue, Visakhapatnam A.P., 2. Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam - 530 001. Rep by its Branch Manager. 3. Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Raipur, Chattisgargh, Rep by its Branch Manager .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding No. F.No. S.23/20/53-2007-A.P. directing the 2nd respondent for encashment of bank guarantees as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of principle of Natural Justice and the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Art. 14 and 19(1)(g) of constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.9132 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri BPR,J) Heard Sri C.Kodandaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, and at their request the main writ petition is disposed of. 2. This petition is filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding No. F.No.S.23/20/53-2007-A.P. directing the 2nd respondent for encashment of bank guarantees as illegal mainly on the ground that a regular appeal is filed and along with the said appeal a stay application has also been filed and the same is pending from 2007 on the file of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. 3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that having regard to the circulars issued by the respondents themselves that as long as the stay applications are not disposed of, question of recovery or encashment of bank guarantee does not arise in pursuance of the orders under challenge in the appeal. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General neither seriously dispute about the Circulars nor about the proposition as to the fact that as long as the application for stay is not disposed of recovery in any manner is not permissible. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the material placed before us, we disposed of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the stay application, pending on its file, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is needless to mention that till the disposal of such stay application, the respondents shall not take any steps for recovery including invoking of bank guarantee or otherwise. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ------------------------------- C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. 24.04.2008 Kvsn/Cvrk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies