1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5688 OF 2009 Satidham Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners. v. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr.Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal, adv. For the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 7th July , 2009 P.C. 1 The learned counsel produced two letters, one dated 2nd July, 2009 effecting service on the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vapi ; on Deputy Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Silvassa and communication of 3rd July on Dedicated Legal Cell (Central Excise). When the matter is called out, none present. 2 Rule. Heard forthwith. 3 These are two cases where bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner has not been returned. Few facts of the case are as follows: 2 4 Bank Guarantee was furnished on 8th July, 2002 for the purpose of giving sub-contracting permission. The Sub-contracting permission was to expire on 29-3-2003. On 23.1.2004 , sub-contracting permission was cancelled. Bank Guarantee given for the release of the seized goods was renewed from time to time and was valid upto 19th May, 2005. The Bank Guarantee was not renewed thereafter as permission granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. According to the petitioner, the purpose for the subject matter is the bank guarantee furnished has become redundant. Thereafter, there was some dispute, which came to be settled pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission dated 20.2.2008. Petitioners paid the amount in terms of the settlement order as also interest on 27.3.2008. 5 On 29.3.2008 petitioner requested respondent no.4 to return the bank guarantee. It was submitted by the petitioner for provisional release of the seized goods. According to the petitioner, Andhra Bank also requested respondent no.2 to return the said bank guarantee as expired and not being invoked as per the terms of the bank guarantee. As it was not released, there was legal notice served. In spite of that bank guarantee has not been released. 3 6 Considering the above, following order: i On the petitioner serving copy of the order on the respondent no.3, respondent no.3 if otherwise, there is no demand in respect of said bank guarantee to release the same within 15 days of the copy of this order being served on the respondent no.3. ii If bank guarantee is not released without any justifying cause, liberty to the petitioner to move this Court for further directions. iii At this stage, we find that because of inaction and lethargy on the part of officers of the respondents, matters come to this Court and thereby increased the workload of this Court. It appears that the Department Heads take no action against the officers, who are responsible for failure to discharge their duties. Once, the duty is cast on the officer and the said officer without giving cause, delays in discharging duties, same would amount to misconduct. We, therefore, direct respondent no.2 in the present case as also in the Writ Petition No.5687 of 2009 to submit a report of the action taken against the officers, who are responsible and who have failed to discharge their duties within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order. 4 7 Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)