ORDER R. B. Mehrotra, J.
1. H. Chowdhary Estates (P) Ltd. which is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is the petitioner in the present matter and has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ of direction to the respondents to refund the entire amount of unused stamp papers along with interest in terms of the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 17th of June, 1991.
2. Necessary facts for the decision of the writ petition are being noticed hereinunder:
The petitioner-company started working of development of residential colony known as 'Pink City' in villages Namoli, Tuglakpur and Rohillapur in 'Tehsil Sikandarabad, district Bulandshahr in the year 1988 in pursuance of this scheme, the petitioner company started negotiating for purchase of land from different land holders and entered into agreements to sell and purchase in respect of land holdings. The prospective plot holders, filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Monapolies Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTPC'). On the aforesaid complaint, the MRTPC, vide its order dated 5th of May, 1989, sealed the bank account of the petitioner in Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar New Delhi and restrained the petitioner from operating the said account.
3. The petitioner-company claims that it had purchased non-judicial stamps for Rs. 36,38,695.00 between 21st of February, 1989 and 1st of May, 1989 even before passing of the order by the MRTPC.
4. In the month of November, 1989, the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation carried out a search of the Director of the petitioner-company and its office and took into their possession various documents, including the un-used and blank stamp papers which were purchased by the petitioner for the purposes of the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner by the land-owners who agreed to sell their plots in favour of the petitioner-company. In the mean-lime there was a settlement before MRTPC between the prospective purchasers and the petitioner-company and it was agreed that the scheme for construction of 'Pink City' be dropped for the time being and the petitioner-company should refund the deposit received from the intending purchasers. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has already refunded more than Rs. four crore to various intending purchasers.
5. Since the matter was being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi was seized of the jurisdiction in the matter of aforesaid investigation. Petitioner company accordingly gave an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi claiming amount of un-used stamp papers from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi after hearing the parties, passed the following orders on 10-7-1990:
"Reply filed by the CBI Heard. The interest of both the parties as well as the persons who had applied for purchasing property in Pink City-I from the applicant lies in the realisation of money which blocked in the non-judicial stamp paper seized by the CBI. The parties agree that the CBI may be directed to return the stamp papers to the Collector of Stamps of U.P. for refund in accordance with rules. The money realised from the refund of the stamp papers may he deposited in the account of the applicant H. Choudhary Estates Pvt. Limited in Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar. The account is already seized under the orders of the C.M.M. Delhi. The applicant shall not be entitled to withdraw any amount out of the refund value of the stamp without the orders of the competent courts. The CBI shall deposit the stamp papers with the Collector of Stamps of U.P. within two weeks. A copy of the order be given to Inspector Harikesh for compliance."
6. The Central Bureau of Investigation in pursuance of the aforesaid orders submitted the un-used stamp papers to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad, respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition, on 17th of January, 1991.
7. The petitioner claimed that despite the direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, referred to above, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), who was exercising powers of the Collector did not deposit the money in the petitioner's account, as directed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition in this court and a Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 21st of May, 1991, directed the Collector of Stamps, Lucknow to dispose of petitioner's application for refund of the stamp papers within a period of two months from the date of the filing of the certified copy of the order. Despite the said direction of this Court, Petitioner's application for refund of the amount of un-used stamp papers was not disposed of. The petitioner again approached the Controlling Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad for necessary direction to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad for refund of the amount of un-used stamp papers to the Controlling Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, vide its tetter dated 17th June, 1991 directed the A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad to dispose of the petitioner's application for refund of the amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Stamp Act read with Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules.
8. In respones to the aforesaid letter, the A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad informed the Controlling Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad vide his letter dated 17th of March/1992 that the Central Bureau of Investigation has deposited the un-used stamp papers for refund of money in his office on )7th of January, 1991, All these stamp papers had been purchased in the name of M/s. H. Chowdhary Estates Pvt. Ltd. from the Treasury of Ghaziabad. Since the money of the stamp papers is to be refunded, it is necessary that a provision be made for refund of the aforesaid amount and a request was made that an amount of Rs. 36,38,695.00 may be sanctioned and allotted for making the necessary refund. Even thereafter, no action was taken and since the petitioner was being pressed for refunding the amount of intending purchasers by the MRTPC, the petitioner requested the MRTPC to request the Board of Revenue, U.P. for necessary direction for refunding the value of un-used stamp papers to enable the petitioner to refund the amount of investors in the petitioner-company. The Joint Director, MRTPC, vide his letter dated 28th May, 1992 requested the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. that necessary orders be passed on the petitioner's application for refund of the aforesaid amount. Despite all this, the amount was not refunded by the respondents and compelled by the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner-company: has filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to the refund the amount of un-used stamp papers.
9. The State of U.P. has contested the petition and has filed a counter affidavit. The only defence taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner-company is entitled to get refund of the money in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Rules and since the application of the petitioner-company for the refund of the un-used stamp papers was not covered within the provisions of the aforesaid Act and is beyond time, the petitioner-company is not entitled to the relief claimed for. It has not been disputed that the A.D.M: (Finance & Revenue) had himself requested the Board of Revenue, U.P. for sanctioning the disputed Amount for refunding the money of the petitioner-company.
10. We have heard learned Senior Advocate, Sri S. N. Verma for the petitioner arid Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned Additional Advocate General, U.P. on behalf of the State.
11. Section 54 of the Stamp Act contemplates -
"When any person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the-purpose intended, but for which he has no immediate use, the Collector shall repay to such person the value of such stamp or stamps in money, deducting, ten naye paise, for each rupee or portion of a rupee, upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled, and proving to the Collector's satisfaction -
(a) that such stamp or stamps were purchased by such persons with a bona fide intention to use them, and
(b) that he has paid the full price thereof;
and
(c) that they were so purchased within the period of six months next proceeding the date, on which they were so delivered:"
12. The State of Uttar Pradesh has framed rules as permissible by Section 74 and 75 of Stamp Act for purposes of carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 is as under:
"218. Reference to provisions for refund in.
Stamp Act; Period of limitation extended in the cases of special hardship -
The refund or renewal of the value of spoiled stamps shall be made strictly in accordance with Sections 49 to 55, Chapter V of Stamp Act, and the applications must be made within the periods prescribed by Section 50. But in cases where the period allowed by the Act for refund or renewal has operated as a serious harship and the holders of spoiled or useless stamp, or stamps not required fpr immediate use are, without, any fraudulent motive, unavoidably prevented from applying for relief within the prescribed period, the Collector is authorised to allow refund or renewals of spoilt or useless stamps or the repurchase of stamps not required; provided that the application for refund or renewal is made within two years from the dated of purchase of the stamps or within two years from the date on which the stamps were spoiled or rendered unless.
Provided further that the State Government irrespective of any time limit, dispose of applications for relief in the cases contemplated in the above provision in which the period of two years has expired."
13. A reading of the Rule-218 shows that the Collector is authorised to allow refund within two years from the date of purchase of the stamps in case the applicant had unavoidably been prevented from applying for relief within stipulated time. The only objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioner-company has made an application for refund after the expiry of the aforesaid period, as such, the petitioner-company is not entitled for the refund.
14. The stand taken by the respondents is patently contrary to the record and also unjust and inequitable. Admittedly the stamps were purchased within the period 21st of February 1989 and 1st May, 1989. The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 10-7-1990 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to deposit the un-used stamp papers with the Collector of stamps within two weeks. The Central Bureau of Investigation having agreed to the said order before the Metropolitan Magistrate did not comply with the said order which led to a situation that the petitioner-company had to file a writ petition in this Court wherein a direction was given to the Central Bureau of Investigation to deposit the stamp papers with the Collector. In consequence thereof, the Central Bureau of Investigation deposited the stamp papers with the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) as late as on 17th of January, 199). So, the papers were presented before the Collector for refund within two years of the date of their purchase. The circumstances also establish that petitioner was prevented from making application within stipulated time due to unavoidable circumstances. Under Rule 218, the application of the petitioner-company was well within time. The Collector was under an obligation to refund the amount of un-used stamp papers under the Rules. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner-company filed its application for the refund immediately before the Collector and when the Collector did not pass any order, the petitioner-company filed a writ petition in this Court which was numbered as writ petitioner No. 5299 of 1991, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 21-5-1991 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's application for refund. This order also shows that in any case the application of the petitioner-company was within two years from the date of purchase of the stamp papers. Despite the direction of this Court, no orders were passed on the petitioner's application. The petitioner-company was being driven from pillar to post, the highest authority of Revenue of the State i.e. Board of Revenue, directed the A.D.M: (Finance and Revenue) to decide the petitioner's application in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad expressed his difficulty, that since there is no money the amount cannot be refunded. This letter also shows that the only obstacle in the way of the petitioner, as claimed by the respondents, is non-availability of the fund for the refund of the amount. The State Government has even reitereated this stand in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. The exact words used in the counter affidavit are quoted herein;
"In the present case looking at the quantum of the amount necessary arrangements are to be made for payment of refund money these letters were written in the public interest."
15. The matter needs to be examined from another angle also. The order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10th of July, 1990 and various letters written by the Joint Director, MRTPC show that value 6f the unused stamp papers is to be refunded to various intending purchasers who had deposited their well earned money with the petitioner-company and who are not getting back their money as the petitioner-company is taking the stand that the Collector of Stamps is not refunding the money of un-used stamps which can be returned to those investors. Doe to unethical attitude adopted by the respondents, the cause of various small investors is suffering. The order of the Metropolitan Magistrate takes due care that the money is not mis-utilised by the petitioner-company. The Central Bureau of Investigation which is investigating the matter has also agreed to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. There is no justification for the State of U.P. and the A.D. (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad in refusing to refund the amount of un-used stamp papers to the petitioner-company on such a technical plea that the application of the petitioner-company is beyond time. We are satisfied that the application of the petitioner-company for refund of the money of un-used stamp papers was within stipulated time. We are further satisfied, in the facts of this case, that there is no justification for the respondents for not refunding the amount of un-used stamp papers to the petitioner-company on the technical plea of the application of the petitioner-company being beyond time. The State cannot be heard saying, since there is no money in its coffer, the citizen will be deprived of his due.
16. We hereby allow the writ petition with costs and direct the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. I in the writ petition and A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition to refund the money of un-used stamp papers deposited by the Central Bureau of Investigation with A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad on 17th of January, 1991 after deducting the amount in accordance with Section 54 Stamp Act and also pay 12% simple interest on the aforesaid amount, from the date the petitioner moved application for refund of the amount of unused stamp, papers, within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, it is being made clear that in accordance with the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the respondents will deposit the requisite amount in the account of the petitioner-company by a crossed cheque in favour H. Chowdhary Estates Pvt. Ltd. in Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi and the petitioner-company will be entitled to withdraw the said amount with the permission of MRTPC and in the manner the MRTPC so directs regard being had to the interest of the various investors who invested the amount with the petitioner-company.
17. Petition allowed.