JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner Gani Khan (since deceased), and now represented by his legal representatives, has stood guarantor for a sum of Rs.1,05,307/- for M/s. Nawab All & Party which was a license holder for the sale of liquor at Taranagar during the period 1985-88. The guarantee was given in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in a writ petition challenging the notification dated 23.5.1985 by which the issue price of the liquor was increased during the currency of license period. It was further stated in the writ petition that guarantee were to cover the amount of difference between the existing rate and the increased rate of issue price which cannot be recovered due to stay order. Ultimately, writ petition failed. The Exhibit-6 is the Attachment Order which was issued against the petitioner Gani Khan for attachment and auction of his house for not honouring the guarantee because of non-payment of the amount of dues by Nawab Ali. 3. The fact about guarantee has not been disputed. But it was clearly stated that guarantee was limited to a sum of Rs.1,05,307/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the guarantee stood has already been satisfied to its full extent. It was urged that the petitioner also already deposited in cash Rs.60,0001- and Rs.45,432.61 which was in deposit with the Excise Department and was refundable to one Shafi Mohammed was got adjusted towards the guarantee money which satisfies the full guarantee and the guarantor stood discharged. Deposit of Shafi Mohammed was in respect of his Country Liquor Shop situated at Gole Bazar, Sriganganagar. To that effect an affidavit of the widow of Shri Shafi Mohammed procured by Department was also filed stating that the refundable deposit money in the name of Shafi Mohammed (since deceased) and who was 20% shareholder in the Ganganagar Shop during the period 1969-70, if adjusted against the dues of Gani Khan (petitioner), she has no objection. This affidavit was obtained by the respondent Excise Department from the widow of Shri Shati Mohammed in respect of the amount standing in the name of Shafi Mohammed, and which was a part of the refundable deposit. Thus, according to the petitioner, nothing remained due to be discharged under the guarantee. Therefore, it was prayed that the attachment order deserves to be quashed. 5. Thus, according to the petitioner, nothing remained due to be discharged under the guarantee. Therefore, it was prayed that the attachment order deserves to be quashed. 5. In reply to the writ petition, the Excise Department has admitted the fact that the petitioner had stood as a guarantor in favour of Nawab All & Party for a sum of Rs.1,06,307/- only, and he has already deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- on different dates. However, it was stated that the deposit of Rs.45,432.61 by Shafi Mohammed could not be adjusted against the dues outstanding against Nawab Ali as the period of such adjustment has expired, and therefore, it remained to be recovered from the guarantor Gani Khan. The application of the petitioner for adjustment of Rs.45,432.61 was rejected by the Excise Department. Thus, the dispute was confined to the adjustment of deposit of Shafi Mohammed. 6. However, no such rejection order has been filed along with reply to the writ petition on 7.12.1994. 7. During the matter was being heard by this Court, an order was made on 27.10.1999 directing the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the order of rejection passed on the application made by the petitioner, if any, so for making adjustments of the said amount. The following directions were issued by this Court: "Mr. Arun Bhansali stated that the application made by the petitioner for making adjustment of the said amount of Mr. Shafi Mohammed must have been rejected by the Department, if it is so, Mr. Bhansali may produce the order of rejection of application and communication to Gani Khan or his successors." 8. In spite of making this order on 27.10.1999, and further time being granted on 24.11.1999, no such order has been produced before this Court, so far though, the matter was being listed before Court subsequent thereto also on 14.12.1999, 29.1.2003 and 24.11.2003. 9. In view of the aforesaid situation. In spite of making this order on 27.10.1999, and further time being granted on 24.11.1999, no such order has been produced before this Court, so far though, the matter was being listed before Court subsequent thereto also on 14.12.1999, 29.1.2003 and 24.11.2003. 9. In view of the aforesaid situation. it is reasonable to infer on admitted facts that the petitioner stood as a guarantor only for a sum of Rs.1,05,307/-, out of which Rs.60,000/- have already been deposited by him in cash, and for Rs.45,432.61 an application for adjustment of the amount has been moved by the petitioner which was standing to the credit of one Shafi Mohammed from whose successors an affidavit was obtained by the Department and 15 produced by the petitioner in the writ petition about their no objection that if the amount is adjusted against the dues of Nawab Ali, which is to be recovered from Gani Khan, and a discharge is given to Gani Khan. Notwithstanding the amount Rs.45,432.61 was otherwise liable to be refunded to Shafi Mohammed, and the same has not been refunded as is apparent from the reply of the Department. The Department has averred that it has rejected the application for making adjustment as time barred, but the fact remains that no such order of rejection was ever produced by the respondents notwithstanding direction was given by this Court for such producement. In these circumstances, an adverse inference against the respondents about the non-adjustment of that amount against the dues of the petitioner is justified. If that is so, the guarantor stood fully discharged. The attachment order against the petitioner-guarantor cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 11.6.1990 30 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed.There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******