1. By this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant – original petitioner has prayed for the following relief :-

“A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to clarify that the “bond” as mentioned in order dated 8.2.2021 is not required to be accompanied by bank guarantee/security and that the goods/vehicle are required to be released on the basis of challan and bond as submitted by the Applicant.”

2. While disposing of the main matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 1368/2021 vide order dated 08.02.2021, this Court observed in para 5 as under:-

“5. Let the proceedings with respect to the confiscation proceed further in accordance with law. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage. However, we are inclined to order provisional release of the goods pending the confiscation proceedings on the condition that the writ applicant shall deposit an amount of ₹ 18 Lakh with the respondent No.2 towards the tax and penalty. For the balance amount towards fine of ₹ 52 Lakh, the writ applicant shall execute a bond to the satisfaction of the respondent No.2 with an undertaking that ultimately, if the goods are held liable to be confiscated, he shall make good the entire payment towards fine in lieu of confiscation. This writ application is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to release the goods on payment of ₹ 18 Lakh and other conditions as imposed by this Court.”

3. We have heard Mr. Uchit N. Sheth, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP appearing for the opponents.

4. It is very sad to note that, the respondent No.2 being an officer of the GST Department has no idea as to what is a “bond” and what is a “bank guarantee”. There is no good reason for the respondent No.2 to be wiser than what the Court has stated in para 5 of the order referred to above. We made ourselves very clear that the goods shall be released on deposit of an amount of ₹ 18 Lakh and so far the balance amount of ₹ 52 Lakh towards fine is concerned, the writ applicant shall execute a bond to the satisfaction of the respondent No.2. There is a fine distinction between the bond and bank guarantee. Our order in the main matter is dated 08.02.2021. Almost one month has passed, but the respondent No.2 has not given effect to our order only because of his misconception of law. We could have taken a very serious note of this, but we refrain ourselves from observing anything further in this regard.

5. We once again direct the respondent No.2 to release the goods once the writ applicant deposits an amount of ₹ 18 Lakh towards the tax and penalty and executes a bond for the balance amount of ₹ 52 Lakh.

6. We request Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP to make the respondent No.2 understand the consequences, which he may have to face in future for getting wiser than the Court. We clarify that, the respondent No.2 shall not go by the proforma which Mr. Utkash Sharma is taking about. When we say bond, means bond in accordance with law and not the bank guarantee in its true sense. The difference between a Bank Guarantee and a Bond is that to obtain a Bank Guarantee, there is a requirement of collateral to satisfy the bank, while Bonds do not need collateral to act as a surety.

7. With the above clarification, present application stands disposed of.