ORDER :

1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for learned Advocate Mr. Rutul P. Desai for the petitioner learned Advocate Mr. Pranav Desai for the Respondent-SBI.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“8. ...

(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct the respondent bank to immediately release the FDR to the tune of Rs.57,45,022/- being arbitrary and illegally withheld by the Respondent-Bank; on in alternative;

(b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct the respondent bank to transfer the said amount directly to the Resp. 2 &3 KVAT Department, Karnataka pursuant to the demand raised by the said department vide letters dated 24.11.2021;

(c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, This Honourable Court may be pleased to accept any corporate guarantee of the petitioner company in order to release the FDRs lying with the respondent bank for the purpose of paying the statutory dues of the said amount to the K-VAT department in the interest of justice;

(D) ...”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a private limited company, for carrying its banking transactions has availed the financial assistance from the Respondent-SBI and along with the financial assistance, the Respondent-SBI has also advanced non-fund based facilities of issuance of Performance Bank Guarantee (in brief, ‘PBG’) to the petitioner for availing the contract in favour of the petitioner by the various authorities.

3.1 As per the arrangement between the petitioner and the Respondent-SBI, such PBGs were issued with 15% margin of the total amount of the bank guarantee to be issued in favour of the third party beneficiaries along with collateral property as security.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly for different projects the petitioner deposited the margin money with the Respondent- SBI and in turn, the Respondent-SBI issued different PBGs with different validity periods in favour of the different third party beneficiaries.

3.3 According to the petitioner, so far as the PBGs which were provided by the ICICI Bank is concerned, the Respondent-SBI has issued a counter PBG in favour of the ICICI Bank.

3.4 Following PBGs were issued by the Respondent- SBI along with the date of expiry and the date of discharge letter provided by the third party beneficiaries;

3.5 It is also stated in this petition that the financial assistance availed by the petitioner has been settled by availing the benefit of ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ of the Respondent-SBI and no due certificates have also been issued by the Respondent-SBI in favour of the petitioner in the year 2020.

3.6 The