Bank guarantee encashment deferred to preserve pending appellate remedy and stay application against penalty recovery.

Where a penalty order had been served only shortly before writ proceedings and the statutory appeal period had not expired, the High Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to pursue the appellate remedy and seek interim stay. Immediate encashment of the bank guarantee would have made that remedy ineffective, so recovery was restrained until the appellate authority decided a stay application filed within limitation. The protection was limited: if no appeal was filed, the respondents could proceed after expiry of the appeal period. The petition was disposed of by preserving the pending appellate remedy and granting only limited interim protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank guarantee furnished for release of detained goods could be encashed before the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to file an appeal and seek stay of the penalty order.

Analysis: The penalty order had been supplied to the petitioner only shortly before the writ proceedings were considered, although the statutory period for appeal had not expired. The petitioner was therefore entitled to pursue the appellate remedy and seek interim protection from the appellate authority. In these circumstances, immediate encashment of the bank guarantee would defeat the petitioner's right to seek stay in the pending appeal. Protection was, however, limited to the period during which an appeal and stay application were filed within limitation and remained pending. If no appeal was filed, the respondents could proceed after expiry of the limitation period.

Conclusion: The respondents were restrained from encashing the bank guarantee until the stay application, if filed along with the appeal within limitation, was decided by the appellate authority. The petitioner's challenge succeeded only to this limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by preserving the petitioner's appellate remedy and granting interim protection against encashment only until the appellate stay request was decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal against a penalty order remains available and a stay request is to be decided by the appellate authority, coercive recovery by encashing the bank guarantee should be deferred so that the statutory appellate remedy is not rendered illusory.

---