hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Varsha Palav for Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, G.P. For State. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : APRIL 27, 2010 P. C.: It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra had given guarantee for the due repayment of loan advanced to Respondent No. 7. The Petitioners had invoked the said guarantee. But have been unable to realize the same and consequently the present petition. The Petitioners relied on the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 1772 of 1998 decided on 1.2.2005. In that case also the issue before this court was invocation of the bank guarantee given by the State of Maharashtra. After dealing with various contentions including whether the writ petition would be maintainable, this court held that the Petition would be maintainable and an order was passed in terms of the directions issued in Para 8 of the judgment. It is to be noted that the Petitioners there had approached this court after the disposal of the assets of the Karkhana and on realizing therein a sum of Rs. 31,86,844.05 ps. In respect of the balance amount, the State was directed to make payments in terms of the said directions. In PIL No. 67 of 2007, Sunderbag Coop. Credit Society Ltd. and Anr. had approached this court contending that the Petitioner therein as a Lead Bank had not taken steps to dispose of the assets of the Cooperative society to which it advanced loans. By order of 14.1.2010, we had directed the present petitioners to take possession and dispose of the assets. We had however, bearing in mind the sugar shortage in the country and as the crushing season was on directed not to take possession till the crushing season is over. The crushing season is now over. In the instant case, we are informed that the possession of the undertaking was taken after December, 2009. On behalf of the State Government, the learned G.P. states that he has instructions to state that on the sale of the assets of Respondent No. 7 in this petition, after realizing the amounts, the balance if any , in terms of the bank guarantee furnished by Respondent No. 1 would be paid to the Petitioners. Considering the above, we see no reason why though it was open to the Petitioners to have independently invoked the bank guarantee against Respondent No. 1 on the the facts and circumstances and as it involves public revenue, why the Petitioner being a lead bank should not be first directed to sell the assets and realize the money from the sale of the assets. If on such sale any further amounts become still due and payable , Respondent No. 1 to make good the said amount within the period of twelve weeks after carrying out the sale of the assets of Respondent No. 7 and intimating to the Respondent No. 1 that the amount that is due and payable. Needless to say that Respondent State Government would be so bound to pay on the Petitioners complying with all the terms and conditions in terms of the guarantee. On behalf of the Petitioners the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the memorandum of understanding arrived at between Government of Maharashtra and NABARD in the matter of invocation of the Bank guarantees. The Petitioner therein was not party to the said memorandum. Even otherwise in our opinion, the Petitioners as a lead bank cannot refuse to comply with their statutory duties more so, after the direction o f this court dated 14th January, 2010 in PIL No. 67 of 2007. With the above observations, Petition disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)