Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Rule. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is served but not appeared. Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4 waives service of notice. Matter is finally heard. 2. The only question to be considered is whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee in respect to another contract on the ground that there is breach committed by the petitioner in respect to contract for which separate bank guarantee is given. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the contract agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondents on 15.02.2005 for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way 14 for a period of 24 months. The said contract has come to an end on 15.02.2007. As per the contract, during the period when the contract was in operation, the petitioner had submitted two bank guarantees dated 10.01.2005 for the sum of Rs. 20,25,700/- and another for the sum of Rs. 70,33,200/-. The bank guarantees were initially for a period up to 31.08.2007. Further it is stated by the petitioner that it was extended up to 29.02.2008, in bona fide. 4. There was no dispute pertaining to the contract of maintenance pursuant to which the aforesaid both the bank guarantees were tendered by the petitioner. But it appears that there was dispute between the respondents and petitioner pursuant to another contract for calculation of toll and maintenance of Samakhyali-Gandhidham National High Way No. 8-A. The respondents authority found that there is huge loss caused by the petitioner in the said contract by not crediting the actual toll etc. and, therefore, it had invoked the bank guarantee submitted pursuant to the said contract namely Samakhyali-Gandhidham National High Way and it also invoked the bank guarantee which is subject matter of the present petition pertaining to Abu Road-Deesa National High Way No. 14. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Avani Mehta, learned Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. 6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Avani Mehta, learned Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. 6. It is an admitted position that there is no dispute in performance of the contract of maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way No. 14 pursuant to which the bank guarantees were given by the petitioner in favour of the respondents-authority. It is also an admitted position that the bank guarantee is sought to be encashed by the respondent-authority on the ground of dispute or breach of contract of maintenance of Samakhyali-Gandhidham National High Way. If the bank guarantee is considered, copy whereof is produced at Page-50, it is apparent that the same is in pursuance of the contract dated 03.01.2005 for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way No. 14. The bank guarantee also provides the security for compliance with the obligation in accordance with the contract. Therefore, if there is any dispute pertaining to the contract for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa road, Respondent No.1 authority may be in a position to encash the bank guarantee irrespective of the manner and method provided for adjudication of the dispute as per the terms and conditions of the contract. However, it appears that there is no dispute in performance of the contract of maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way and there is dispute pertaining to the maintenance and calculation of toll for Samakhyali-Gandhidham High Way which is altogether a different contract. When the bank guarantee has been given pursuant to a particular contract, it is not open to the respondents-authority to encash the bank guarantee against the alleged breach and non-compliance of the conditions of a different contract. 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 authority attempted to contend that as the bank guarantee is unconditional and is an independent contract between the bank and Respondent No. 1, it was within its right to encash its bank guarantee and it was, therefore, submitted that the action for encashment of the bank guarantee cannot be said as illegal or arbitrary. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in support of her submission, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. B.S.E.S. Ltd. (Now Reliance Energy Ltd.) vs. M/s. Penner India Ltd. and Another, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1148, had the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paras 9 and 10 onwards. 8. If the facts and circumstances of the case as considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are taken note of, it appears that in the said case, the guarantee was given pursuant to the very contract and it was not for the different contract. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court to consider as independent contract between the person, in whose favour the bank guarantee is given, and the banker, were read as independent, in context to any of dispute between the parties to the contract. Such observations cannot be read to the extent that irrespective of the fact that the bank guarantee was given for performance of a particular contract, the same can be invoked for the alleged breach of another contract. Had the bank guarantee been given in its absolute term irrespective of any contract whatsoever, it might stand on different footing but in the present case, it is an admitted position that the bank guarantee was given by way of performance of contract for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa National High Way and it was not irrespective of any contract between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 authority. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent No.1 by the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the above, the impugned action of Respondent No.1 for encashing the bank guarantee submitted for maintenance of Abu Road-Deesa Section National High Way for the amount of Rs. 20,25,700/- and for the amount of Rs. 70,33,200/-, both dated 10.01.2005 is quashed and set aside. 10. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost.