Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2279 (ALL)

Alok Kumar Agrawal v. State of U. P. and Ors.

2011-09-27

ARUN TANDON

body2011
Petitioner before this Court is stated to have purchased stamp papers worth Rs.1,80,000/- for the purposes of execution of a sale deed on 04.04.2008. According to the petitioner the contract could not materialize, therefore, the stamp papers were not used. The petitioner made an application on 13.05.2009 for refund of the money represented by the value of the stamp paper. This application was admittedly beyond six months of the date of purchase of the document. The petitioner also made an application stating therein that the stamps were misplaced and it was only while cleaning during the festive season of Deepawali, the same could be traced out. The delay in making of the application be condoned. For relaxation of the period of six months prescribed, the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamps Rules, 1942. The application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) vide order dated 29.05.2009. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act. The appeal has also been dismissed after recording a finding that the petitioner had not made the application within six months from the date of purchase of the stamp papers and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. For appreciating the controversy raised by means of the present writ petition, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamps Rules, 1942 : @Hindi@ From a simple reading of Rule 218, it is apparently clear that a provision has been made for accepting the applications for refund even beyond the period of six months provided that the stamps have not been put to any use and there is no mala fide intention of the person concerned seeking refund. The Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order has lost sight of the intent of Rule 218 and has adopted an hyper technical attitude. This Court may record that the purpose of Rule 218 is to ensure that if the stamps purchased have not been put to any use and there is no mala fide intention seeking refund, in normal circumstances the delay in filing of the application need be condoned, subject however to the deduction of the requisite amount. This Court may record that the purpose of Rule 218 is to ensure that if the stamps purchased have not been put to any use and there is no mala fide intention seeking refund, in normal circumstances the delay in filing of the application need be condoned, subject however to the deduction of the requisite amount. This Court has no hesitation to record that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is not in accordance with the purpose for which Rule 218 has been incorporated. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation furnished in respect of the delay in making of the application. Consequently, the order impugned dated 14.10.2009 is hereby quashed. The appeal is restored to its original number. Let the Commissioner pass a fresh order within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made herein above.