Tata Power Company Ltd vs Union Of India

The petition is admitted for hearing. No notice need be issued because respondent has appeared through Mr A P Sahay, Advocate assisted by

Mr. Vivek Singh on account of advance notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for an urgent interim order in terms of prayers (a) and (b)in paragraph 69 of the petition which are

as follows :-

(a) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining the Respondent, its offices, authorised representative/agents from taking any coercive action,

including invoking and/or encashing PBG No. 49580IGL0010720 issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent in respect of its IPS License ;

and

 (b) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order directing the Respondent to immediately      withdraw and for not to enforce its letter dated

09.07.2021 issued to Citibank directing Citi bank to encash the Petitioner's said Bank Guarantee, if the same is not   renewed by 16.08.2021;.....Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that license in question contained in Annexure P-1 is dated 22.8.2003 and as per terms contained

therein, it was to be effective from 24.8.2000 to 23.8.2015. He has referred to petitioner's letter dated 30.8.2006 (Annexure P/6) by which

petitioner communicated to The Assistant Director General (DoT) that petitioner had decided to surrender the licence. In that letter petitioner

requested to return Bank Guarantee (BG) of Rs. 2.00 Crores. Learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 10.5.4. of the license wherein is is

stipulated that the Performance Bank Guarantee shall be returned to the licencee six months after the termination of the license and after ensuring

clearance of any dues which the licensee company is liable to pay. Reliance has been placed upon paragraph-9 of the petition to submit that to

the knowledge of the petitioner there are no dues payable nor there is any demand against the petitioner since 2006. A detailed representation dated

28.4.2020 (Annexure P/5) contains a prayer for return of the Performance Bank Guarantee By the impugned letter dated 9.7.2021 addressed to the

Manager, Citi Bank, D N Road, Fort, Mumbai, the Controller of Communication Accounts, DoT has requested the bank that if the Bank Guarantee

for Rs. 2 crores valid up to 16.8.2021 is not renewed by 16.8.2021, the said letter should be treated as a claim of DoT for encashment and the

proceeds should be sent to the concerned officer of the DoT, Mumbai.

On the basis of facts noticed above and the law of limitation for raising monetary demands, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

there is no liability upon the petitioner to renew the Bank Guarantee in question any further because it involves expenses. He further submits that

the Bank Guarantee, in any case, should have been returned after settlement of dues, if any, within six months from 23.8.2015 when admittedly the

license had to expire. According to him, the petitioner should be protected by staying the operation of impugned letter contained in Anneuxre-P/3

till it is declared by this Tribunal that petitioner is entitled to return of the above said Bank Guarantees.Â

In the facts noted above, this Tribunal was inclined to consider passing of a suitable interim order today but Mr. A PÂ Sahay, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent submits that interim order may be passed, if required, on the next date and the matter be listed again prior to 16.8.2021 so

that , if possible, he may seek detailed instructions and file a reply.

The aforesaid request of Mr Sahay appears to be reasonable. No harm will be caused to the petitioner because the renewal is permitted by the

impugned letter by 16.8.2021 also. Hence, let this matter be listed under the head ""For Directions"" on 12.8.2021.

It will be open for the petitioner to file a reply/short reply before that date with an advance copy to the other side.