The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29348 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) M/s. Utkal Builders Limited, Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Singhdeo, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 09.10.2025 / date of judgment : 17.10.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Letter No.5094 dated 23.04.2024(Annexure-4) issued by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) through its Assistant Collector(Opposite Party No.5) refusing to refund Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two) equal to the value of the e-Stamp Certificate bearing No.IN-ODO6003535013718V on the ground of limitation assigning the reasons that, “the petitioner had purchased e-Stamp Certificate bearing IN-ODO6003535013718V on dated 10.04.2023, but, he(petitioner) had applied for the refund of the equal amount of the said e-stamp certificate on dated 31.01.2024 for its non-utilization, which is after the expiry of its limitation period for application, i.e., after six months since 10.04.2023, for which, the petitioner is not entitled to get its refund.” To which, the petitioner has challenged by filing this writ petition. 2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State(Opposite Parties). 3. Here, in this matter at hand, the reason/ground for the refusal/rejection of the application of the petitioner for the refund of amount, i.e., Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs Page 2 of 7 fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two) equal to the value of its un-utilized e-stamp certificate by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) was only on the sole ground of limitation, as the petitioner had applied for its refund six months after purchase. 4. Now, the question arises, whether the order of refusal to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the equal amount of his un-utilized e-stamp certificate passed by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) and communicated to the petitioner through Letter No.5094 dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) by Opposite Party No.5 is sustainable under law? On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Ramesh Chandra Kalra vrs. Union of India and others : reported in 2024(1) CCC- 268(Delhi) that, the refund of stamp duty cannot be declined, where applicant has purchased stamp certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide purpose. In a case between Bano Saiyed Parwaz vrs. (ii) Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and others : reported in 2024(2) CCC-177(S.C.) that, when State deals with a citizen concerning return of stamp duty, rely on technicalities even though such defences may be open it should not ordinarily Page 3 of 7 to it—Period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy, but, not right. For which, the case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty. State is directed to refund stamp duty deposited by the appellant. In a case between Harshit Harish Jain and (iii) another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in 2025(1) CCC-(S.C.)-141(decided by three Judges Bench)—Refund of Stamp Duty—Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quashi-judicial determination. (iv) In a case between Committee GFIL vrs. Libra Buildtech. Private Limited and others : reported in (2015) 16 SCC-31 That, when the State and its officers deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and if the State and its officers are satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, in that case, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person. (v) In a case between Sukh Dutt Ratra and another vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others : reported in 2022(II) CLR(S.C.)-101 & 2022(2) CCC(S.C.)-6—State merely on the ground of delay and laches cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated. Because, State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches. In such a situation, there cannot be a limitation to doing justice. In a case between Smt. Sharda Devi vrs. (vi) Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi and others : reported CCC-204(Jharkhand)—On technical grounds, State should not deny to its citizens just dues. 2022(2) in (vii) In a case between Firm Kaluram Sitaram vrs. The Dominon of India : reported in AIR 1954 (Bombay)-50—That, when the State and its officers deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and if the State and its officers are satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, in that case, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person. (viii) In a case between The Postmaster General, Sambalpur and another vrs. Miss Sanjukta Hota : reported in 2018(I) CLR-1191 that, it is the high time Page 4 of 7 that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens.(Para Nos.14 and 17) International by In a case between Madras Port Trust vrs. (ix) Hymanshu its proprietor V. Vantakatadri(dead) by L.Rs. : reported in 1979(4) SCC-176 that, it is high time that, Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. In a case between Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vrs. K. Parasaran and others : reported in AIR 1996(S.C.)-2687 that, State is a virtuous litigant. (x) In a case between State of Orissa and another vrs. Sri Dwarika Das Agarwalla : reported in 2017(1) CLR-313 that, State is a virtuous litigant. When State deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities. If State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is just one, even though, legal defences may be open to it, it must act as an honest person.(Para-18) 5. Here, in this matter at hand, when the impugned order passed by the Collector, Khurda as per Annexure-4 does not reveal that, the un-utilized stamp papers were purchased by the petitioner not for any bonafide purpose, but, when the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the equal value of the un-utilized e-stamp papers was rejected/refused by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) only on the ground of limitation, as the petitioner had applied for its refund after six months of its purchase and when as per the clarifications made in the ratio of the Page 5 of 7 aforesaid decisions that, the State and its officers cannot deny the legitimate claim of its citizens including the petitioner only on technical ground of limitation, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned order, i.e., refusal/rejection to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the money equal to the value of the e-stamp certificates vide IN- ODO6003535013718V by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) as per order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) is liable to be quashed. So, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 6. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 7. The impugned order of refusal for returning Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four Page 6 of 7 hundred forty-two) to the petitioner passed on dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) is quashed. 8. The Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) is directed to refund Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two), which is equal value of the un-utilized e-stamp certificate of the petitioner vide IN- ODO6003535013718V within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this judgment to the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) 9. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3.) immediately. 10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
Decision
disposed of finally. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUITTACK Date: 18-Oct-2025 10:26:08 Page 7 of 7