Point of Law: In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

V.P. Patel, J.

1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner-Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with invocation of bank guarantee dated 27.12.2012 issued by Respondent No. 2-Bank of India, in favour of the Respondent No. 1-Gujarat Maritime Board, which is a body set up under Gujarat Maritime Board Act 1981 (fore short "GMB").

2. Heard Mr. Mihir J. Thakore learned Senior Advocate and Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Lavkumar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. G.H. Virk for Respondent No. 1-GMB and learned Advocate Mr. K.M. Parikh with learned Advocate Mr. Kuldeep K. Adesara for Respondent No. 2-Bank of India and perused the record and documents produced on record.

3. The Petitioner has prayed for the reliefs in para 38 of the petition which reads as under:

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 17.5 crores to Respondent No. 2 for its wrongful and illegal invocation of the Bank Guarantee dated 27th September 2012, without fulfilling the necessary conditions stipulated therein;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 to reverse the debit in the Petitioner's account and issue a fresh Bank Guarantee on similar terms and conditions as the Bank Guarantee dated 27th September 2012;

(c) Restrain Respondent No. 1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee in question without there being any breach of the terms and conditions contained the Letter of Intent;

(d) Pending hearing and final disposal restrain Respondent No. 2 from invoking the mortgage against the Petitioner and charging any interest on the debit balance of the Petitioner in its account;

(e) Pending hearing and final disposal Direct, Respondent No. 1 to deposit the monies in this Hon'ble Court that its received from Respondent No. 2 on account of the illegal invocation of the conditional Bank Guarantee;

(f) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (d) and (e) above may kindly be granted;

(g) Pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

4. Case of the Petitioner:

4.1. It is the case of the petitioner Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. that the petitioner is registered under the Companies Act and it is engaged in the business of development of Ports, Infrastructure etc. (hereinafter it will be referred to as "the Petitioner"), and that it had applied, as a lead promoter, to develop the green field port of Nargol for and on behalf of Gujarat Maritime Board. In response to the request for proposal issued by the GMB dated 21st April 2011, the Petitioner had made a proposal dated 20th September 2011.

4.2. The Petitioner was issued a Letter of Intent ("LoI" for short) dated 30th August 2012 by the Respondent awarding the project to the Petitioner and appointing it as the lead promoter and successful bidder for the development of the Port at Nargol on Build-Own-Operator-Transfer ("BOOT" for short) basis. The LoI laid down certain basic conditions including but not limited to submission of a detailed project report, its acceptance by the Respondent GMB, environmental clearances by the Coastal Regulatory Zone Authority, Ministry of Environment & Forests ("MOEF" for short) and subsequent signing of the concession agreement only after obtaining the relevant environmental clearances.

4.3. The LoI was accepted by the Petitioner on 4th September 2012. Pursuant to the LoI, the Petitioner submitted a Bank Guarantee through Respondent No. 2-Bank of India ("Respondent No. 2-BoI" for short) in the format that was prescribed by Respondent No. 1-GMB. The Bank Guarantee was for a sum of Rs. 17,50,00,000/- i.e. 17.5 crores. The Petitioner was required to and did pay a 25% margin on the Bank Guarantee.

4.4. The Petitioner has claimed that: after conducting various surveys such as hydrographic surveys, topographic surveys, bathometric surveys, flora fauna surveys etc., the Petitioner submitted the detailed project report in March 2015,