IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16564 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMED KAISE, S/O.SRI.ABDUL HAKKIM, RAHUMATH MANZIL, MUNDACKAL VILLAGE, THEKKEVILA CHERRY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT: ------------- THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16564 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition on 4th July, 2008 I passed the following order:. 'On 4-6-2008, I passed the following order: “Government Pleader shall get instructions from the respondent as to why the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner has not been returned as per Ext. P3 settlement.” On 13-6-2008, I ordered notice by special messenger, which was served. The matter again came up on 17-6-2008, on which date it was posted to 18-6-2008. On 18-6-2008, I passed the following order: “The respondent shall file a counter affidavit stating as to why in spite of Ext. P3 settlement the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner has not been returned to the petitioner immediately after Ext. P3 settlement was signed.” Again, the matter came up today. Even today, neither any counter affidavit nor any instruction is forthcoming. In Ext. P3 agreement, there is a specific clause, wherein the parties to the agreement had agreed that the bank guarantee issued by the petitioner would be returned by the respondent to the petitioner. As such, the respondent has no manner of right to retain the bank guarantee even for one day after the date of Ext. P3, which has been signed in the presence of the respondent who has countersigned the same also. Ext. P3 is dated 29-3-2008. In the above circumstances, the respondent is directed to appear in person to explain his conduct, on 14-7-2008, if the bank guarantee is not released to the petitioner by that time. The learned Government Pleader shall inform the respondent accordingly.' 2. In view of the conduct of the respondent, I was w.p.c.16564/08 2 inclined to award costs to the petitioner. However, in view of the affidavit filed on 14.7.2008 I take a lenient view and drop further proceedings. In view of the fact that the bank guarantee has been returned to the petitioner, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge