hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 1995 M/s. Indo Zinc Limited and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Kiran Doiphode i/by M/s. V.M. Doiphode & Co. for Petitioners. Mr. D.A. Dubey for R. No. 1. Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for R. Nos. 2 to 7. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 P.C. The Petitioners were seeking to import under advance licence. The advance licence was originally issued in favour of the Vishakhapatanam Steel Plant. The licnece originally was transferred from Vishakhapatanam to Mumai. The goods, however, reached Nhava Sheva. The respondent refused to clear the goods on the advance licence which was transferred to Mumbai. The Petitioners approached this court and by way of an ad interim order dated 14.2.1995 this court was pleased to issue transfer in respect of the licence dated 25.11.1993. Further direction was to the third respondent (Assistant Collector of Customs) to forthwith clear the goods upon receipt of TRO/RA from second respondent. The Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, before this court a show cause notice came to be issued to the Petitioners. Petitioners challenged the said show cause notice. Petition was accordingly amended. When the SLP came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, the same was disposed of in view of the subsequent events namely the show cause notice. By an order of this court dated 10.10.1995 the Petitioners were directed to file reply to the show cause notice and final decision after compliance of the other procedure was to be taken within six months. Accordingly the order came to be passed. The Assessing Officer held in favour of the Petitioners herein. The appeal was preferred before the CESTAT which was dismissed by an order dated 22.11.2001. In view of the subsequent events, in our opinion, nothing further survives in this petition. The only contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that pursuant to an interim order of this court dated 14.2.1995 they had furnished a bond in favour of the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 16.2.1995. Considering the subsequent events in the proceedings, the authorities have held in favour of the Petitioner. We direct the bond be returned to the Petitioner duly cancelled. With the above observations, rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)