JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the interim order dated July 30, 1992 passed in Writ Petition 1399/92 pending before the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 99.50 lakhs to the respondent against a bank guarantee within four months from the date of the order. 2. It is not disputed that on the export of textile items, the respondent-mills is entitled to Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) at the rate of 8% of the FOB value. It is further not disputed that for the export made by the respondent during the period from September 22, 1988 to July 2, 1991 the respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 300.26 lakhs as CCS at the rate of 8%. 3. The dispute relates to the payment of additional 5% CCS which the respondent claims under Circular No. 16, dated September 22, 1988. The Union of India on the other hand pleaded before the High Court and has contended before us that the respondent-mills is not entitled to the payment of additional 5% CCS. According to the appellants the respondent-mills has been paid Rs. 201 lakhs towards the CCS at the rate of 8% and a further sum of Rs. 112.72 lakhs towards additional 5% CCS has also been paid by mistake. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that instead of Rs. 300.63 lakhs due to the respondent a sum of Rs. 313.72 lakhs has been paid. 4. We have briefly touched the contentions of the parties to understand the controversy involved in the writ petition pending before the High Court. We do not wish to go into the merits of the case. Sufficient to say that the claim of the respondent to additional 5% CCS is denied by the appellants and the controversy has to be finally decided by the High Court in the writ petition. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that it was not appropriate for the High Court to have directed the payment of Rs. 99.50 lakhs to the respondent-mills by way of interim order. We, therefore, allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated July 30, 1992. We, however, request the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously, if possible, within three months. 99.50 lakhs to the respondent-mills by way of interim order. We, therefore, allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated July 30, 1992. We, however, request the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously, if possible, within three months. The impugned order in favour of the respondent-mills having been set aside, it would not be obligatory for the respondent to give the bank guarantee. We further direct that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court further proceedings consequent upon the notice dated February 6/7, 1992 shall remain stayed. The cross appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.