Dmt 1 wp2282-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2282 of 2010 Ashwin Savani. .. Petitioner. versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Mr. Manish Doshi i/by M/s. Vimadalal & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Nilam Jadhav i/by Ms. Suchitra Kamble for R. No. 2. Mr. Aniruddha Lad i/by M/s. Intra Legal for R. No. 3. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 01 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : The contention of the Petitioner is that the bank guarantee dated 22 May 2003 in the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs was issued in respect of the obligation to fulfil the conditions Dmt 2 wp2282-10 of an import licence dated 7 May 2003 bearing No. 0310200703 and that a redemption letter has been issued by the DEEC on 25 November 2010 stating that the export obligation has been discharged in full. A copy of the redemption letter was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner DEEC on 2 December 2010. Hence it has been urged that there was no occasion to invoke the bank guarantee. On 9 November 2011 the Court while recording these submissions adjourned the hearing of the Petition in order to enable the Counsel for the Respondents to take instructions. Counsel for Respondent No.1 is absent. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on the record a letter dated 25 November 2011 issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, (Group-7-DEEC). The letter records that the documents submitted for cancellation of bonds and bank guarantee based on the redemption letter of the JDGFT, Mumbai dated 25 November 2010 have been processed. Further, the letter records that the bonds and the bank guarantee executed for discharge of the export obligation in Dmt 3 wp2282-10 respect of the aforesaid licence are cancelled. However, since the bank guarantee executed for the discharge of the export obligation is not readily traceable, it has been stated that the letter may be treated as a cancellation of the bonds and the bank guarantee. The copy of the letter has been marked to the Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank (Respondent No.3) and to the Advocate appearing on behalf of the First and Second Respondents. 3. We, accordingly, dispose of the Petition by directing the Third Respondent to take due note of the letter, a copy of which is placed on record and which has also been handed over to the Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Nothing further survives in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.) Dmt 4 wp2282-10