SABA SARIF Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The supplementary affidavit reveals that in pursuance of the order dtd. 22/9/2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has filed the bank guarantee before the respondent no.2.

(2.) Upon submission of the bank guarantee, the respondent no.2 has released the original certificates/documents to the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 is still to refund the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000.00 alongwith interest which was taken from the petitioner as condition of the bond. Relying on the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.757 of 2020 (Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College Vs. Dr. Ansul Jain and others), learned counsel further submits that the bond that was taken by the respondent no.2 is not valid and is required to be treated as null and void.