JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, along with Mr. S. Sahay, Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 3. This petition has been filed for modifications/clarification of order dated 04.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015. A prayer has been made in this petition seeking modification/clarification to the extent directing the respondent-writ petitioner to hand over the original copy of the letter of extension of the Bank Guarantee to the present petitioners or in the alternative, clarifying that the photocopy of the email received by the present petitioners from the Bank regarding extension of Bank Guarantee be treated as sufficient for invocation of the Bank Guarantee. 4. Counsel for the present petitioners submits that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015 was filed arising out of dispute pursuant to agreement dated 13.12.2011 between the parties. On 05.02.2016, this Court restrained the present petitioners from invoking the Bank Guarantee. By order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015, the period of Bank Guarantee was extended upto 31.12.2018 pursuant to I.A. No. 4 of 2016 and I.A. No. 474 of 2016. However, the writ petition remained pending before this Court and accordingly, another application being I.A. No. 11242 of 2018 was filed seeking extension of Bank Guarantee and this interlocutory application was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2018 and the writ petitioner was directed to extend the Bank Guarantee latest by 29.12.2018, failing which it was observed that it will be open to the respondents (present petitioners) to invoke the Bank Guarantee. 5. Learned counsel for the present petitioners further submits that subsequently, vide order dated 04.01.2019, the writ petition was withdrawn by the writ petitioner and a submission was made by the writ petitioner that the Bank Guarantee which was furnished by the writ petitioner dated 25.10.2011 has been extended till 31.12.2019. It was also submitted that the writ petitioner was willing to get the dispute resolved through alternative mechanism. Accordingly, a prayer was made that the respondents in the writ petition (present petitioners) may not invoke the Bank Guarantee only for a period of two weeks. It was also submitted that the writ petitioner was willing to get the dispute resolved through alternative mechanism. Accordingly, a prayer was made that the respondents in the writ petition (present petitioners) may not invoke the Bank Guarantee only for a period of two weeks. The respondents in the writ petition (present petitioners) also did not dispute the fact that the Bank Guarantee was extended till 31.12.2019 and the letter of extension dated 27.12.2018 which was produced during court proceedings, was taken on record. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. The writ petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to get its grievances redressed through alternative mechanism and as the writ petitioner had expressed the desire to get the dispute resolved through alternative mechanism, the respondents in the writ petition (present petitioners) were directed not to invoke the Bank Guarantee only for a period of two weeks from 04.01.2019. 6. It is stated in the present petition that after expiry of two weeks from 04.01.2019, the present petitioners invoked the Bank Guarantee vide letter dated 19.01.2019, and Bank refused to honour the invocation of Bank Guarantee on the ground that the original copy of letter dated 27.12.2018 was not submitted. 7. The learned counsel for the present petitioners submits that the Bank insisted upon submission of the original letter of extension and it is alleged in the present petition that this was done in connivance with the present respondent (the present petitioners), which ultimately led to filing of the present petition. 8. Vide order dated 20.09.2019 passed in the instant petition, the respondent (writ petitioner) was directed to produce the Bank Guarantee in original before this Court and consequently, the respondent has produced the Bank Guarantee on 27.09.2019, which has been kept with the learned Registrar General of this Court in safe custody. 9. On 27.09.2019, time was granted to the respondent to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in this case wherein it is not in dispute that the validity of the Bank Guarantee has been extended till 31.12.2019 and at the same time, they do not dispute the fact that the original letter of extension was not handed over to the present petitioners. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in this case wherein it is not in dispute that the validity of the Bank Guarantee has been extended till 31.12.2019 and at the same time, they do not dispute the fact that the original letter of extension was not handed over to the present petitioners. However, they have given an explanation for not furnishing the same to the present petitioners, in as much as, it has been specifically mentioned in page 7 of the counter-affidavit that the letter dated 27.12.2018, by which the Bank Guarantee was extended till 31.12.2019, was misplaced and was not traceable with the respondent- company. Ultimately, it has been mentioned in page 8 of the counter-affidavit that through continued ongoing search process, the original extended Bank Guarantee dated 27.12.2018 was located in the dumped papers and the learned counsel appearing for respondent has tendered the original extended Bank Guarantee before this Court during the hearing on 27.09.2019. However, in the counter-affidavit, the respondent has referred to various problems which are being faced by them and a prayer has been made at para 18 that this Court may pass an order which may not prejudice the interest of the respondent as the Bank Guarantee is in safe custody of the learned Registrar General of this Court. 10. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the parties are still undertaking the dispute resolution procedure through alternative methods i.e. Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Central Public Sector Enterprises Disputes. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015, the respondents of the writ petition (present petitioners) were restrained from invoking the Bank Guarantee which was extended from time to time and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on account of availability of alternative redressal mechanism. Even on the date when the writ petition was disposed of, it was not in dispute, that the Bank Guarantee was extended and on earlier occasion i.e. on 19.12.2018, an order was passed in the writ petition directing the writ petitioner to extend the Bank Guarantee. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the extended Bank Guarantee, the original of which has been deposited by the respondent before this Court, is required to be handed over to the present petitioners. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the extended Bank Guarantee, the original of which has been deposited by the respondent before this Court, is required to be handed over to the present petitioners. The present petitioners have been put to unnecessary difficulty in invoking the Bank Guarantee in absence of the original copy of the same although the Bank Guarantee was itself extended by virtue of order dated 19.12.2018 in the writ petition. The respondent (original writ petitioner) has given an explanation in the counter-affidavit, as mentioned above, for not handing over the original letter of extension of Bank Guarantee to the present petitioners that the original was misplaced in their office. 12. At this, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that invocation of Bank Guarantee will not prejudice the case of the either parties as ultimately the matter is still to be resolved between the parties and as per the respondent themselves, the matter is pending before appropriate forum. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 04.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015 is hereby modified by further holding that the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 5862 of 2015 (i.e. present petitioners) are entitled to the original of the extended Bank Guarantee from the writ petitioner. 14. As a cumulative effect to the aforesaid, the present petitioners are entitled to receive the original extended Bank Guarantee dated 27.12.2018, which has been deposited by the writ petitioner (respondent here) and is lying with the learned Registrar General of this Court. The learned Registrar General is directed to hand over the original extended Bank Guarantee , to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 102 of 2019 is hereby disposed of.