1 2025:CGHC:1880-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 908 of 2024 1 - Ashwin Kumar Gurdhanbhai Thakkar S/o Shri Gurdhan Bhai Thakkar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kharaghoda Gujarat and proprietor of M/s Suraj Lodized Company Main Bazaar Patdi, District - Surendra Nagar Gujarat ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Hitavada Parisar Avanti Vihar Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh Through The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Hitavada Parisar Avanti Vihar Telibandha Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karnataka Bank Limited Fafadih Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh Through The Branch Manager Karnataka Bank Limited Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Munish Kumar Om Prakash Shah S/o Omprakash Shah Aged About 45 Years R/o Mahesh Colony Shrinagar Road Gudhiyari Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Shri Rakesh Ramswaroop Agrawal S/o Shri Ramswaroop Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahesh Colony Srinagar Road Gudhiyari Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. M.C. Soni through Video Conferencing with Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate For Respondent No.4&5 : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Asseem B. Gopal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.15 17:43:22 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. M.C. Soni through video conferencing along with Mr.Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 668 days in filing the present appeal. 2. On due consideration the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1486 of 2016 (Ashvin Kumar Gordhanbhai Thakkar Vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ 3 appellant / writ petitioner has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioner is a Proprietor of M/s. Suraj Iodized Company situated at Patdi, District Surendra Nagar, Gujarat. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and supply of an Iodized salt. The petitioner-Establishment has been dealing with supply of salt with the respondent No.1-Corporation. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No.4 Munish Kumar Om Prakash Shah. It was the respondent No.4 who was dealing with the respondent No.1-Corporation on behalf of the petitioner-Establishment in connection with the supply of salt to the Corporation. The Corporation in turn used to distribute it to the general public of the State of Chhattisgarh through the Public Distribution System. Down the line, there seems to be some differences that arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. Initially a Power of Attorney was executed, which was subsequently cancelled. The respondent No.4 had furnished a bank guarantee to the respondent No.1-Corporation through the respondent No.3-Bank. In between the respondent No.1-Corporation on account of certain alleged recoveries against the petitioner tried to invoke the Bank Guarantee. At this juncture, the respondent No.5 is said to have filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. WPC No. 663/2015 seeking for a protection, so far as the action on the part of the 4 Corporation as regard the invocation of the Bank Guarantee is concerned. The said writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.07.2015. As a consequence of the writ petition, the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent No.4 was permitted to be encashed. It is not in dispute that the bank guarantee encashed went to be credits of the respondent No.4- the Power of Attorney Holder. It was the respondent No.4 himself who had furnished the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee did not belong to the petitioner, nor had the petitioner furnished the same, though the business was being carried out in the name of the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. WPC No. 1486 of 2016 for directing the respondent - Karnataka Bank Limited to return the amount to the petitioner and further to direct prosecution against respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and other persons, who have unauthorized utilized the name of the petitioner and withdrawn the amount from the Bank on the ground that the said writ petition (i.e. WPC No. 663/2015) has been filed in the name of the petitioner without their consent and knowledge. The same has been filed on an affidavit filed by the respondent No.5, who is a total stranger to the petitioner- Establishment. There is no business relationship whatsoever between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has played fraud with the Company and has also suppressed his identity before the Division 5 Bench, when he had filed the writ petition and as a consequence of allowing of the writ petition, he could avail the benefit of encashment of the bank guarantee. Thus, the respondent No.4 as also the respondent No.5 be prosecuted for the said act on their part for filing the writ petition without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner which also amounts to impersonation or malpractice. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.12.2022. Being aggrieved the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this serious offence committed by the private respondents in collusion because the appellant specifically informed about cancaellation of the Power of Attorney even though deliberately, they suppressed everything and they do not have any power, but on the basis o forged document, they obtained order from the Hon’ble Court and specifically bank guarantee is in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that learned Single Judge has failed has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the appellant has not been put to any sort of financial loss, but failed to consider important aspect that it is fraud with Hon’ble Court as well the appellant and instead of cut down such type of practice, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondents 6 submit that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly disposed of the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition has observed that the matter was pending before this Court since 03.06.2016 and almost more than 6 years time has been elapsed till then and further observing that admittedly, no monetary loss has been incurred by the petitioner- Establishment on account of the filing of WPC No. 663/2015 or any consequential steps taken by the respondent No.3-Bank in permitting the respondent No.4 in encashing the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee was in fact furnished by the respondent No.4 and on encashment of the same the benefits have gone back to the respondent No.4, this again is not in dispute. It has been further observed that respondent no.4 entering appearance before this Court admitted that the respondent No.5 was his authorized officer and it was respondent no.4 who had permitted him to file the writ petition. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / 7 appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra